CRM-M-21044-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CRM-M-21044-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.09.2026 Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.184 dated 01.08.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula, District Panchkula. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 15, Panchkula alleging therein that the petitioner, who was working as a driver, had applied for a personal loan of Rs.13,63,000/- from the bank on 24.02.2025. Although he was stated to be a permanent government employee working at Amritsar, he submitted documents showing his address to be of Mohali and Chandigarh, for obtaining the loan. It was further alleged that the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.05 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21044-2026 (O&M) -2- documents submitted by the petitioner included a service certificate, salary slip, service book, NOC of existing bank/rank and account statement relating to an existing loan. The complainant alleged that these documents were forged. It was also alleged that thereafter the petitioner transferred his salary- crediting account from SBI to Punjab and Sind Bank and stopped paying the EMIs of the loan. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 30.11.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in commission of subject offences. Investigation qua the petitioner stands completed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been in custody since 30.11.2025. Investigation qua him already stands completed. The final report has been submitted before the learned trial Court and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution case is primarily based upon documentary evidence, all of which has already been collected by the investigating agency. Therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioner’s tampering with such evidence. He has clean antecedents. It has also argued that the allegations relate to a loan transaction. The petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period. Learned counsel submitted that the trial is likely to take time and continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. It is, thus, urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations levelled MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.05 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21044-2026 (O&M) -3- against the petitioner, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.11.2025. The investigation qua the petitioner already stands completed and the final report has been presented before the learned trial Court. The State itself has stated that charges have been framed against the petitioner and the co-accused on 27.07.2026. Out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far, that too partially, which shows that conclusion of trial would take considerable time. The petitioner has clean antecedents. The case is based on documentary evidence, which have already been collected by the investigating agency. Hence, there is no apprehension of the petitioner’s tampering with the same. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 03.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.05 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document