Sukhwant Singh @ Rajvir Singh @ Mama Vs State… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Sukhwant Singh @ Rajvir Singh @ Mama Vs State… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail during trial: petitioner Sukhwant Singh @ Rajvir Singh @ Mama ordered released upon furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court; no comment made on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No.60/2023, given custody since 19.09.2024, completion of investigation and presentation of the final report under S.173 Cr.P.C., and absence of trial progress (none of 13 prosecution witnesses examined). +1 more

Court's answer

No useful purpose would be served by further detention of the petitioner; keeping him in detention without the prospect of the trial concluding in the near future would violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

Involvement of the petitioner in other cases is not, by itself, a ground to refuse the concession of regular bail.

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.ratio¶31
The order grants bail without commenting on the merits of the case, so as not to prejudice the outcome of the trial; the trial court is to proceed uninfluenced by the observations herein.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail under S.483 BNSS — FIR No.60/2023, P.S. Dakha (Ludhiana Rural), Ss.420/467/468/471/120-B IPC (job-rupee fraud with forged Markfed joining letter) — Petitioner not named in FIR, nominated on disclosure statement of co-accused Deepak Kumar, who was already granted anticipatory bail (07.02.2025) and has compromised with the complainant — Custody since 19.09.2024; investigation complete, final report under S.173 Cr.P.C. filed, none of 13 prosecution witnesses examined — Following Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, and relying on Prabhakar Tewari 2020(1) R.C.R.(Cri.) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi 2012(2) SCC 382, the Court held that involvement in other cases is no ground to refuse bail and that prolonged detention absent near-term trial prospects violates Article 21 — Petition allowed; petitioner released on regular bail during trial on furnishing bonds/sureties to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court; observations not to prejudice trial.

218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-1724-2025 Date of decision: 10.03.2025

Sukhwant Singh @ Rajvir Singh @ Mama

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.60 dated 29.04.2023 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Dakha, District Ludhiana Rural.

The FIR (supra) was registered on the statement of the complainant by alleging that Jaskaran Singh and Tarandeep Singh had deceived him of Rs.15 lakh under the pretext of securing a government job for him. Furthermore, they allegedly provided him with a forged joining letter for the position of Supervisor and ensured his attendance was marked in the office of Markfed. It is further alleged that during investigation, it came up in the statement of co-accused, namely, Deepak Kumar that the accused/petitioner also played role in deceiving the complainant as well as Taranvir Singh and thus, the instant case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

Neha 2025.03.10 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-1724-2025

-2-

petitioner is not named in the FIR (supra) and he has been nominated as accused only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, namely, Deepak Kumar. He further submits that the aforementioned Deepak Kumar was granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025 in CRM-M-2-2025 titled as ‘ Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Punjab ’ . The complainant has effected a compromise with co-accused-Deepak Kumar. The petitioner is behind the bars since 19.09.2024. The investigation of the case is complete. Further, the case is triable by the Magistrate.

The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court today which is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has played an active role in deceiving the complainant as well as Taranvir Singh. He has provided the forged joining letters. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in two more cases.

A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51 , with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

“6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial

Neha 2025.03.10 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-1724-2025

-3-

India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.”

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 19.09.2024 Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not made much progress as out of 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘ Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another ’ 2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and ' Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Another' , 2012 (2) SCC 382, the involvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail.

In view the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner -Sukhwant Singh @ Rajvir Singh @ Mama is ordered to

Neha 2025.03.10 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-1724-2025

-4-

be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of

opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court.

		(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE
10.03.2025
Neha
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

Neha 2025.03.10 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document