Uday Kumar Vs State of Haryana

1	The da te when thejudgment is reserve d	20.05.2026
2	The da te when the judgment is pronou nced	26.05.2026
3	The da websit te when the judgment is upload e ed on the	26.05.2026
4	Wheth pronou pronou er only operative part of the jud nced or whether the full judgme nced gment is nt is	Full
5	The de judgm lay, if any, of the pronounceme ent and reasons thereof. nt of full	Not applicable

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

¶12

Present: Mr. Prabhsimran Singh, Advocate w ith Ms. Saloni Kumar, Advocate for th e petitioner

¶13

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Keshav Saini, Advocate for res p ondent No.2 Mr. Archit Rana, Advocate for resp o ndent No.3

¶14

¶15

MANISHA BATRA, J.

¶16

Th e instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sectio n 483 of Bharatiy a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20 2 3 (for short “BNSS”) for gran t of regular bail i n case arising out of FIR No. 2 62 dated 15.09.2025 registere d

¶17

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶18

CRM-M-17042-2026 (O&M) 2

¶19

under Sections 4 06, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 4 71 and 120B of IPC at Polic e Station Sector 5 6 , District Gurugram.

¶20

Th e aforementioned FIR was regi s tered on the basis of a writte n complaint move d by M/s. Paryapt Infrastructur e Private Limited Company (fo r short “Company ” ) through its representative, all e ging therein that Tushar Kuma r Sehgal associate d with Vega Brokerage House, t he present petitioner their othe r accomplices in connivance with each other w ere representing themselves a s authorized repre s entatives of the complainant-c o mpany and on the basis of suc h representations, were purporting to sell units of a project launched by th e complainant-co m pany in the name of “M3M PARAGON 57” at Gurugram. Th e complainant ha d come to know that the petition e r and co-accused had circulate d false document s showing authorization issu e d by RERA to create fals e impressions abo u t the legitimacy of their claim s and to mislead the prospectiv e buyers, thereby i nducing them for payments of money in respect of the projec t of the complain a nt and to enjoy unjust enrichme n t.

¶21

Aft e r registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated . It was revealed that the certificate which was c laimed to have been issued b y RERA, Panchk u la by the petitioner and the co- a ccused was a forged document . The investigatio n also showed that the bank account numbers as declared in th e promotion docu m ents had been forged by the petitioner and co-accused an d were used for t r ansfer of substantial amount o f money. During the course o f investigation, the statement of Rakesh Kaul victim i.e. respondent No.3 ha d been recorded, w ho disclosed that by trusting th e petitioner, and on being allure d

¶22

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶23

CRM-M-17042-2026 (O&M) 3

¶24

by him, he had given an amount of Rs.61,40, 0 00/- to him for the purpose o f buying a unit in M3M Paragon 57 project. Wh e n he had asked for copy of th e BBA agreement , the petitioner had started mak i ng excuses. The petitioner ha d wrongly represe n ted to him that there was a unit number as SA-P57-0511 at 5^t^h Floor of M3M P a ragon 57 project, whereas in fact, no such unit was in existenc e and he had been cheated at the hands of the petit i oner.

¶25

Th e petitioner was arrested on 20 . 09.2025. On interrogation, h e suffered disclos u re statement admitting that h e in connivance with the co - accused was d e frauding the complainant-co m pany by falsely representin g himself as auth o rized channel partner in its pr o ject and by preparing false an d fabricated docu m ents and impersonating fic t itious identities, had pursue d deception. Inve s tigation now stands concluded.

¶26

It i s argued by learned counsel fo r the petitioner that he has bee n falsely implicated in this case. In fact, his fathe r who is real estate agent, havin g licence issued b y RERA, is authorized to sell p roperties of M3M Paragon 5 7 project. Rakesh Kaul asked his father to get s o me property in the said projec t and had selecte d one unit which was purchased through father of the petitioner . The said Rakes h Kaul had then shown inter e st to invest money in tradin g business of th e firm of the petitioner and had invested money therein . Subsequently, t h e petitioner had incurred losse s on the amount so invested b y Rakesh Kaul an d himself for online trading an d by hatching a conspiracy wit h the said Rakesh K aul, the complainant company , has implicated him in this case . The petitioner is in incarceration since 20. 0 9.2025. The ingredients fo r

¶27

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶28

CRM-M-17042-2026 (O&M)

¶29

4

¶30

commission of s u bject offences are not attracted against him. He is not require d for further inves t igation since challan stands pre s ented. The victim Rakesh Kau l has been duly compensated by him and he ha s no objection if the petition i s allowed. The a n tecedents of the petitioner are clean. There are no chances o f conclusion of t r ial as only 01 out of 11 p r osecution witnesses, has bee n examined so far. His further incarceration woul d not serve any fruitful purpose . It is, therefore, a r gued that the petition deserves t o be allowed.

¶31

Per contra, learned State counsel a ssisted by learned counsel fo r respondent No. 2 -complainant has argued that taking into consideration th e gravity of the al l egations as levelled against th e petitioner, he does not deserv e to be extended b e nefit of bail.

¶32

Lea r ned counsel for the respon d ent No.3 has, however, no t controverted the contentions as raised by the l e arned counsel for the petitione r and has also s u bmitted that a compromise h a s been arrived at between th e petitioner and t h e respondent No.3 and that t h e latter has no objection if th e petition is allow e d.

¶33

Thi s Court has heard the rival sub m issions made by learned counse l for the parties at considerable length.

¶34

Th e petitioner is alleged to have pr o jected himself as an authorize d channel partner i n M3M Paragon 57 project and by representing so, is alleged t o have caused wr o ngful loss of money to the resp o ndent No.3 Rakesh Kaul on th e premise of getti n g allotted a unit in the above-n a med project to him. He is als o

¶35

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶36

CRM-M-17042-2026 (O&M)

¶37

5

¶38

alleged to have used forged and fabricated do c uments like RERA registratio n certificate and some receipts etc. for the purp o se of proving his claim as th e authorized chan n el partner in the project of the c omplainant company. It is onl y on thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that an y definite conclus i on as to the commission of t he offences of forgery by th e petitioner can b e drawn and not at this stage. T h e allegations prima facie mak e out a case for c o mmission of offence of cheatin g against him. However, he ha s remained in cus t ody since 20.09.2025. The inv e stigation now stands conclude d as challan has b e en filed. The trial will take c o nsiderable time to conclude a s only 01 out of 11 prosecution witnesses has be e n examined so far. The subjec t offences are tria b le by Magistrate. The anteced e nts of the petition are clean. I t is well settled p r oposition of law that bail is t h e rule and jail is an exception . Pre-trial incarce r ation should not be replica of p ost-conviction sentencing. Th e object of the jail is to secure appearance of the a c cused during trial, and it canno t be preventive or punitive. Taking into conside r ation the above discussed facts , this Court is o f the opinion that a case is m a de out for grant of bail to th e petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petitio n is allowed and the petitioner i s ordered to be released on bail subject to his furn i shing personal as well as suret y bonds to the satisfaction of the learne d trial Court/Chief Judicia l Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶39

It i s , however, clarified that the ob s ervations made above shall no t be construed as a n expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the cas e and shall not inf l uence the outcome of the trial i n any manner.

¶40

AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.26 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶41

CRM-M-17042-2026 (O&M) 6

¶42