CRM-M-32819-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 226+111 CRM-M-32819-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 DEEPAK AGARWAL @ GURDEEP ......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ..... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Karanjeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. CRM-27132-2026 This is an application seeking for placing copy of complaint on record as Annexure A-6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and Annexure A-6, annexed with the application, is taken on record. Main case 1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.248 dated 01.10.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B [Sections 465, 467, 468 & 471 added later on] of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Phase-1, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.28 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32819-2026 (O&M) 2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Davinder Singh’ hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. The pith and substance of above-mentioned complaint was that in the year 2023, currency notes of the denomination of Rs.2000 were discontinued by the Government, and that he could not exchange currency notes by the cut-off date. As per complainant, since he wanted to exchange the currency notes in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- and looking for help for that he came in contact of the petitioner and his co-accused, who allured him & assured that on payment of commission, they would arrange the exchange of currency notes. According to above-named complainant in view of above-mentioned allurement he paid Rs.7,05,49,000/- for the booking of slot with the RBI for exchange of currency notes and later on found that he was duped by the petitioner and his co- accused. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up 4. Heard. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than seven months and two days, and that investigation in this case is already complete and the challan has been filed by the police. According to learned counsel for the petitioner nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. 6. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to commission of offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471, there is no allegation against the VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.28 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32819-2026 (O&M) petitioner. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have reached to a settlement and a compromise has been reduced into writing, and that pursuant to above- mentioned compromise, the complainant is not interested in opposing the above-mentioned bail petition. 7. The learned State Counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel the offence is serious in nature, and that in view of the role attributed to the petitioner, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 8. The learned counsel for the complainant had conceded that the parties have reached to a compromise, and that in view of compromise the complainant is not interested in opposing the instant bail petition. 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: - i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than seven months and two days; ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; iii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the above-mentioned offence is imprisonment upto seven years; iv) that the investigation in this case is already complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; v) that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; vi) that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose; VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.28 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32819-2026 (O&M) vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial. 11. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”. VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.28 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32819-2026 (O&M) 12. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”. 13. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”. 14. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.28 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32819-2026 (O&M) fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354. 15. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 16. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 17. All other pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed off, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No vipin Whether reportable Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2026.07.28 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document