CRM-M-36991-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36991-2026 (O&M) Om Bahadur ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 25.08.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.08.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.08.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kavita Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. ... Manisha Batra, J. 1. The instant one is the second petition as filed by the petitioner seeking benefit of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.10, dated 13.01.2026, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC, at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal. His previous petition bearing No.CRM- M-27238-2026 had been dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order HARJEET KAUR 2026.08.27 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36991-2026 (O&M) -2- dated 19.05.2026. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant – Mahendra Chhetri, alleging therein that he was induced by the petitioner and co-accused Sandeep Kumar to invest money in their company, namely, 'ALVIRLAND INVESTMENT AND CONSULTANT Company' (for short 'the company') by representing that their company had launched AVL Token and on investment, he would be getting handsome returns as after 18 months, the price of AVL Token would be doubled and he could also return it. On being allured by them, the complainant had given an amount of Rs.41 lakhs to the petitioner and co- accused for the aforementioned purpose. However, he was made to enter into a written agreement with the intention of defrauding him. The petitioner and co-accused refused to return his money. By alleging that he was cheated at the hands of the petitioner and co-accused, he prayed for taking action in the matter. 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was arrested on 06.03.2026. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Accused Sandeep Kumar and Harvinder Singh, who were subsequently nominated as accused were not found to be involved in the commission of subject offences. Investigation qua the petitioner stands concluded and he is facing trial for commission of the aforementioned offences. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 06.03.2026. He is HARJEET KAUR 2026.08.27 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36991-2026 (O&M) -3- not required for further investigation. The subject offences are triable by the Magistrate. The grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. His antecedents are clean. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner being successive one is not maintainable. It is also argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner is alleged to have caused wrongful loss of huge amount of money to the complainant. The allegations prima facie make out a case for commission of offence of cheating as against the petitioner. However, he has been in custody since 06.03.2026. Investigation HARJEET KAUR 2026.08.27 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36991-2026 (O&M) -4- now stands completed. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak. Continued detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. The well settled proposition of law is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts but without meaning to make any comments on the merits of the case lest the same prejudice the trial in any manner, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 27.08.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2026.08.27 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document