Dismissed¶24

Mohd Rasid v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2026CRM-M/41900/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regular bail dismissed; FIR No.504 dated 26.10.2023; Police Station Parao, District Ambala; Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC; Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; job-ration cheating; Class-III Govt. jobs, Department of Income Tax; Rs.24,20,000/-; Rs.21,00,000/-; fake appointment letters; co-accused Rajesh Kumar; prior FIR by Davinder Kumar, abuse of process; six more similar cases; habitual offender; custody about one year; three of 18 witnesses examined; State of Haryana; Ms. Ruchi Sekhri Addl. A.G.; prima facie case and gravity of offence.

What did the court decide?

It is a well settled principle that while considering a petition for regular bail the Court must consider the prima facie case against the petitioner and the gravity of offence as well. ¶23

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in FIR No.504 dated 26.10.2023 (Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, Police Station Parao, District Ambala). +3 more

¶14

Court's answer

It is a well settled principle that while considering a petition for regular bail the Court must consider the prima facie case against the petitioner and the gravity of offence as well.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is alleged to be involved in six more cases of similar nature; meaning thereby he is involved in the business of cheating innocent persons and grabbing their hard-earned money.

¶23

Key takeaways

Prima facie the allegations against the petitioner are very serious; furthermore, the petitioner is operating in other State(s) also.ratio¶23
Keeping in view the nature of offence and the petitioner's involvement in various other cases of similar nature, the Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail - dismissed. Petition under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.504 dated 26.10.2023, Police Station Parao, District Ambala, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC. Prosecution case: the petitioner, alongwith co-accused Rajesh Kumar, duped the complainant of Rs.24,20,000/- (of which Rs.21,00,000/- was allegedly transferred directly into the petitioner's account) on the pretext of providing Class-III Govt. jobs in the Department of Income Tax to Bhawna Rani and Davinder Singh, daughter and nephew of the complainant; the appointment letters issued were found fake. Petitioner's counsel contended false implication, a prior FIR by Davinder Kumar on the same allegations (abuse of process), custody of about one year and a slow trial (three of 18 witnesses examined). State counsel (Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G., Haryana) opposed, alleging involvement in six more similar cases (two in U.P., some in Punjab) and habitual offending. Applying the prima facie case-and-gravity test, the Court found the allegations prima facie very serious and held there was no ground to grant the concession of regular bail at this stage; petition dismissed.

¶1

�� 

¶2

�� 

¶3

�� ! �"#��$��$��%

��&��

��

��

&��'��

��

��#��(�)��$��&��$&$��*�)$

¶10

++++

¶11

��

¶12

Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ��

¶13

�$&$��*�),��$�-��).

¶14

� ��!��"#$��Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.504 dated 26.10.2023 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Parao, District Ambala.

¶15

Case of the prosecution is the petitioner alongwith his co-accused namely Rajesh Kumar have duped the complainant for an amount of Rs.24,20,000/- on the pretext of providing Class-III Govt. Jobs in the Department of Income Tax to Bhawna Rani and Davinder Singh, who are daughter and nephew of the complainant respectively. It is also stated that an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- was directly transferred into the account of the petitioner. Even the appointment letters issued were found to be fake.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits Davinder Kumar has already got registered an FIR against the petitioner on the same set of allegations, and as such, the institution of present FIR on the same set of allegations is clearly an abuse of process of law. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last about one year and the trial is moving at a

¶17

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.02.20 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

¶18

��

¶19

��

¶20

very slow pace as only three witnesses have been examined till date out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and grave in nature. She further submits that the petitioner is involved in six more cases of similar nature and out of them two cases have been registered in the State of U.P. and some of them have been registered in the State of Punjab. She further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is indulged in cheating innocent people. Hence, learned State Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents and other material available on record meticulously.

¶23

It is well settled principle of law that while considering a petition for regular bail, the Court must consider the prima facie case against the petitioner and the gravity of offence as well. Apparently, the petitioner is alleged to be involved in six more cases of similar nature. Meaning thereby, the petitioner is involved in the business of cheating innocent persons and grabbing their hard-earned money. Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. Furthermore, the petitioner is operating in other State(s) also. Hence, keeping in view the nature of offence and his involvement in various other cases of similar nature, this Court does not find any ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶24

Dismissed.

¶25

��

¶26

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.02.20 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

Mohd Rasid v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Rasid v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aashish @ Sawan @ Jedi Vs State of Haryana

Bhagwan Dass Vs State of Punjab

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Zakir Hussain @ Kaif Vs State of Haryana

Sunil Dixit Alias Ajay Alias Jai Vs State of Haryana

Ravi Kumar Alias Ravi Kumar Kashyap Vs State of Haryana