CRM-M No.21010 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 ***** CRM-M No.21010 of 2026 Date of decision : 27.7.2026 Date of uploading : 27.7.2026 Sandeep Kumar Singla ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.370 dated 14.11.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- ‘From Inspector Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Ranjitpur. To The Station House Officer, Ranjitpur. Memo No.IFS/2025/SPL-01 dated 14.11.2025 Subject:- Regarding registration of FIR against Shri Shri Balaji Agro Industry on the charge of embezzlement in the government paddy. With reference to the above subject, in this matter, you ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21010 of 2026 -2- are informed that the Food Department has supplied 59926.125 QTL of government paddy to Shri Shri Balaji Agro Industry, Ranjitpur for milling. It was allotted and a physical inspection of the said rice mill was conducted today on 14/11/2025. A total of 59926.125 QTL was allotted by us to Shri Shri Balaji Agro Industry, Ranjitpur, but during the physical inspection, only 24504.375 QTL of paddy belonging to the Food Department of the said rice mill was found on the spot. As per the above, against the total 59926.125 QTL of paddy allotted to the said rice mill, after deducting the quantity of paddy found in the physical inspection, 35421.75 QTL of paddy has been embezzled by the miller. Sandeep Kumar, son of Shri Ashok Kumar, address House No. 14, Mand Khedi Road, Ayshen Complex, Chhachhrauli is the proprietor of the said rice mill. Therefore, you are requested to register an FIR against the said rice mill on the charge of embezzlement of 35421.75 QTL of paddy. Ensure legal action is taken. Enclosed: Physical Inspection Report. SD MANOJ KUMAR Inspector Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Ranjitpur.’ 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 2.12.2025. Learned senior counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned senior counsel has further urged that the FIR in question essentially emanates from accounting/contractual/business dispute. Learned senior counsel has further urged that the challan, upon culmination of investigation, already stands presented and conclusion of trial will take long. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has permanent roots within society and therefore, there is no likelihood of the petitioner to flee from the process of justice. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel had filed reply dated 14.5.2026, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status ASHWANI KUMAR report, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing 2026.07.27 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21010 of 2026 -3- that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 25.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected. 11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21010 of 2026 -4- sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible. 12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.” 6.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under:- “Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.” 6.2. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21010 of 2026 -5- accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.” 6.3 The petitioner was arrested on 2.12.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 27.2.2026 and subsequently filed. Total 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is conceded case before this Court that none have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. 6.4 As per custody certificate dated 25.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 7 months and 16 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 3 other FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21010 of 2026 -6- sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 6.5 Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the FIR in question appearing to have basis/genesis of contractual/business dispute, challan upon culmination of investigation having been presented and nothing tangible have been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence; this Court is inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.21010 of 2026 -7- in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 27.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.27 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document