IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-12891-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.09.2026 Date of uploading: 02.09.2026 Satnam Singh Cheema ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner to secure regular bail in case bearing FIR No.243 dated 31.05.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 467, 468, 471 & 34 IPC and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged NAVEEN NAGPAL that the prime culpability pertains to co-accused namely Sushil Mehta and 2026.09.02 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh. CRM-M-12891-2026 (O&M) P a g e | 2 Ranjit Kaur, who are still absconding. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the investigation qua the petitioner is complete and challan already stands filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further urged that earlier the petitioner was afforded the concession of interim regular bail on 13.03.2026 so as to explore the chances of amicable settlement between the rival private concerned parties, but the same has not fructified and there is no allegation against the petitioner of having mis-used the concession of interim regular bail earlier afforded to him. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 3. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition by iterating that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has further argued that the petitioner may flee from the process of law, in case he is released on bail and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 3.1. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by iterating that allegation raised against the petitioner are direct/serious in nature, as the petitioner was instrumental in defrauding the complainant of ₹42 lakhs, which is yet to be recovered. He has further urged that a settlement was also arrived before the concerned Panchayat, wherein the petitioner had undertaken to send the complainant abroad and/or return the amount to the complainant, which reflects the NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.09.02 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh. CRM-M-12891-2026 (O&M) P a g e | 3 culpable conduct of the petitioner. Thus, dismissal of petition in hand is entreated for. 4. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 4.1. At this juncture, 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 sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.09.02 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh. CRM-M-12891-2026 (O&M) P a g e | 4 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.” 4.2. 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.” 4.3. 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 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. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.09.02 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh. CRM-M-12891-2026 (O&M) P a g e | 5 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.” 5. The petitioner was arrested on 29.11.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan stands presented qua the petitioner on 15.01.2026. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which none has been examined till date. It is, thus, evident that conclusion of the trial will take long time. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case; especially the factum of challan (charge-sheet) already having been filed against the petitioner, out of a total of 19 prosecution witnesses having been cited, none having been examined, two co-accused, namely Sushil Mehta and Ranjit Kaur, stated to be absconding, upon whose arrest a supplementary challan is likely to be filed, and the petitioner being a person with clean antecedents; this Court is inclined to afford the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties 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. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.09.02 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh. CRM-M-12891-2026 (O&M) P a g e | 6 absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6. As per custody certificate dated 01.09.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 16 days & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR/case. 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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/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 cellphone 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 the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove, or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of the petitioner's bail. 9. Ordered accordingly. NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.09.02 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh. CRM-M-12891-2026 (O&M) P a g e | 7 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2026.09.02 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticityi of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh.