Dayanand Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Dayanand Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail pending trial granted under Section 483 BNSS; petitioner to be admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, conditioned on appearance at every hearing and full co-operation with the trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in FIR No.244 dated 19.09.2022 (PS Guhla, District Kaithal) in custody since 19.10.2022, should be granted bail pending trial under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Court's answer

Given prolonged custody since 19.10.2022, framing of charges on 09.08.2023, only 16 of 38 prosecution witnesses examined so far, no State objection that the petitioner would influence witnesses or hamper trial, and involvement in no other criminal case, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed; the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear on each and every date of hearing and fully co-operate with the learned trial Court without seeking unnecessary adjournments.ratio¶25
The observations made in the order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶29
In case of recurrence or misuse of the concession of bail, the State of Haryana is at liberty to move an appropriate application for recall of the order.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail pending trial — Section 483 BNSS — Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petitioner's second bail petition in FIR No.244 dated 19.09.2022, Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal (Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and Section 24 Emigration Act, 1983), arising from allegations of duping the de facto complainant of Rs.45,00,000/- on the pretext of sending him abroad. Petitioner in custody since 19.10.2022; charges framed 09.08.2023; only 16 of 38 prosecution witnesses examined; no other criminal case against him; State raised no plea of likely witness influence or trial hampering. Holding further incarceration purposeless, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate, subject to appearance on every date and full co-operation, clarified its observations were not on the merits, and reserved liberty to the State to seek recall on any misuse of the concession.

CRM-M-1188-2025

212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-1188-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.01.2025

Dayanand

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

Present: Mr. Pawan Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ashok S. Chaudhary, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No.244 dated 19.09.2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’); and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983, registered at Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana.

Allegations are that petitioner, in connivance with other co-accused, duped the de facto complainant-Harvinder Singh to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/-, on the pretext of sending him abroad.

Contends that petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2022; charges were framed on 09.08.2023; and out of total 38 prosecution

ATUL SETHI 2025.01.20 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-1-

CRM-M-1188-2025

witnesses, only 16 have been examined till date; thus, trial is likely to take sufficient long time. Also contends that there is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer, on instructions, submits that allegations are very serious against the petitioner who kept in his shop an amount of Rs.29,50,000/- and Cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- as surety.

Heard both sides and perused the paper-book.

Concededly, petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2022; charges were framed on 09.08.2023, but out of total 38 prosecution witnesses, only 16 have been examined so far; therefore, conclusion of trial may take sufficient long time. Moreover, it is not the objection of State that in case, petitioner is released on bail, he shall influence the witnesses or hamper the course of trial, in any manner and moreover, he is not involved in any other criminal case; thus, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose.

Consequently, present petition is allowed; petitioner shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Petitioner shall appear on each & every date of hearing and to fully co-operate with the learned trial Court without seeking any unnecessary adjournment(s).

ATUL SETHI 2025.01.20 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2-

CRM-M-1188-2025

The above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

It is clarified that in case there is recurrence or any misuse of concession of bail on the part of the petitioner, State of Haryana would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

17.01.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) atulsethi JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

ATUL SETHI 2025.01.20 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-3-