Mukesh Yadav @ Sonu Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Mukesh Yadav @ Sonu Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in FIR No. 274 dated 07.08.2025.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found the allegations against the petitioner serious in nature, relating to commission of fraud involving a huge amount in crores and preparation of a forged and fabricated sale agreement, with the material collected during investigation prima facie indicating the petitioner's involvement in the alleged transaction.

Key takeaways

With the charges yet to be framed and the material witnesses yet to be examined, the Court held that releasing the petitioner on regular bail at this stage may not be appropriate, particularly in view of the gravity and nature of the allegations and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed.ratio¶¶21
Considering the seriousness of the accusations, the stage of the proceedings and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court found this not a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail and dismissed the petition.ratio¶¶24
Nothing observed in the judgment shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail under S.483 BNSS 2023 refused; petition dismissed. FIR No. 274 dated 07.08.2025, Police Station Sector-65, District Gurugram, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of the BNS, 2023 (Section 241 BNS 2023 added later), alleging inducement on the pretext of investment/business dealings, cheating and misappropriation of a huge amount in crores and preparation of a forged and fabricated sale agreement. Petitioner in custody since 06.10.2025 (five months and eight days per custody certificate); investigation complete but charges not yet framed and material witnesses unexamined. Court held release at this stage inappropriate given the gravity and nature of the allegations and the stage of proceedings; observations expressly not an expression on the merits.

-1-

CRM-M-7861-2026 (O&M)

204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

-.-

CRM-M-7861-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.03.2026

Mukesh Yadav @ Sonu ....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryan a ....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. J.P.Jangu, Advocate for the peti t ioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryan a .

Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

Th i s is the first petition under S e ction 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regula r bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 274 dated 07.08.2025 regist e red under Sections 3 18(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of the BNS, 2023 (later on Sec t ion 241 of the BNS , 2023 was added) at Police Stat i on Sector-65, District Gurugra m . 2. Br i ef facts of the case, as per the FIR, are that the present case has been registere d on the statement of the co m plainant alleging therein that the petitioner, alon g with other co-accused, induce d the complainant on the pretex t of investment/busi n ess dealings and dishonestly m isappropriated a substantial am o unt of money. It is alleged that by making false r epresentations and assurances, the accused person s committed fraud with the co m plainant and caused wrongful l oss to him while gaining wrongful benefit for th e mselves. On the basis of the s aid allegations inv o lving a huge amount, the prese n t FIR came to be registered aga i nst the accused per s ons.

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-7861-2026 (O&M)

-2-

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner s ubmits that the petitioner has been falsely implicat e d in the present case. It is cont e nded that the petitioner has bee n in custody since 0 6.10.2025 and the investigatio n is already complete. It is fur t her submitted that t he charges in the present case a re yet to be framed and the tri a l is likely to take c o nsiderable time to conclude. L e arned counsel also submits that the petitioner is re a dy to abide by any condition imposed by this Court and is not likely to influ e nce the witnesses or tamper w ith the evidence. Therefore, the petitioner deser v es to be granted the concession of regular bail. 4. Le a rned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant h a s opposed the present petitio n and has also filed the cust o dy certificate, as per which the petitioner is in c u stody for the last five months a nd eight days. It is submitted that the allegations a gainst the petitioner are seriou s in nature and inv o lve cheating and misappropriat i on of a huge amount. It is fur t her submitted that the investigation has reveale d the active involvement of the petitioner in th e commission of the alleged of f ence and the charges are yet t o be framed in the p r esent case.

Af t er hearing learned counsel for t he parties and perusing the rec o rd, this Court is o f the considered view that t h e allegations levelled against the petitioner are s e rious in nature and relate to co m mission of fraud involving a h u ge amount in cror e s and preparing forged and fabr i cated sale agreement. The mat e rial collected duri n g investigation prima facie i ndicates the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged transaction.

At this stage, the charges in the pr e sent case are yet to be framed a nd the material w itnesses are also yet to be e xamined. In such circumstan c es, TRIPTI SAINIreleasing the p etitioner on regular bail at t h is stage may not be appropriate, 2026.03.13 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-7861-2026 (O&M) -3-

particularly ke e ping in view the gravity and nature of the allegations and the manner in whic h the offence is alleged to have b een committed.

Co n sidering the seriousness of t he accusations, the stage of the proceedings an d the overall facts and circumsta n ces of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fi t case for grant of the concess i on of regular bail to the petitio n er. Consequently, t h e present petition is dismissed.

However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expres s ion on the merits o f the case.

Al l pending miscellaneous applica t ion(s), if any, stands disposed o f .

March 13, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Whethe r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Whethe r reportable : Yes/ N o

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document