Allowed

Deepak v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/13816/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a regular bail petition filed under Section 483 BNSS. The petitioner, already in custody and involved in a stayed case, was released on bail subject to standard conditions and a monetary surety of Rs. 50,000.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, subject to specific conditions and a deposit of Rs. 50,000.

Deepak Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRM-M-13816-2026 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

223

¶5

CRM-M-13816-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.09.2026 Date of uploading : 11.09.2026

DEEPAK

………….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

…….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

¶12

Present: Mr. Kawalpreet Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana.

¶14

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

CRM-32503-2026

¶16

The application in hand is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶17

CRM-M-13816-2026

¶18

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0023 dated 17.01.2022 under Sections 34, 384, 419, 420 of the IPC (Challan presented under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 of IPC) & Sections 2, 9, 39, 44, 48, 49, 49-A, 49-B, 51, 52, 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 7, 7A, 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the charges framed under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 read with Section 120-B of IPC, Sections 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Section 7, 7A, 13(1)(b) of the prevention of corruption Act, 1988,

¶19

JATIN 2026.09.11 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-13816-2026 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

registered at Police Station Line Par, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while iterating the cause of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2026. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner was earlier afforded the concession of regular bail but could not appear as he was involved in another FIR(s), in which he came to be arrested. Learned counsel has further urged that the proceedings qua the FIR in question have been stayed by this Court in CRR-1207-2026. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

¶24

Learned State counsel had filed status report by way of affidavit dated 21.04.2026, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 12.08.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

¶25

I have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

¶26

Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the factum of the petitioner earlier having been granted bail by the concerned Court on merits thereof, the petitioner now being in custody since 27.02.2026 and the trial proceedings qua the FIR in question having been stayed by this Court at least for the nonce; this

¶27

JATIN 2026.09.11 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRM-M-13816-2026 (O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

¶31

As per custody certificate dated 12.08.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 07 months and 09 days & is shown to be involved in another cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

¶32

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

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 CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following

¶34

conditions:-

¶35

JATIN 2026.09.11 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-13816-2026 (O&M)

¶37

-4-

¶38

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

¶39

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

¶40

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

¶41

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

¶42

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone 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.

¶43

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) In addition to such conditions, the petitioner shall be obligated to either deposit a demand draft or FDR or cash surety to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the Court releasing him on bail, which amount shall be liable to be forfeited forthwith in case the petitioner again absconds from the process of law.

¶44

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/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 bail of the petitioner.

¶45