Labh Singh vs State Of Haryana

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3492 P&H
Judgement Date : 18 April, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Labh Singh vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2026

                      CRM-M-51870-2025                                                 1




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH.

                      122                             CRM-M-51870-2025 (O&M).
                                                      Date of Decision: 18.04.2026.

                      Labh Singh                                                ....Petitioner.
                                               VERSUS
                      State of Haryana                                          ....Respondent.
                                                   ***

                      CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
                                        ---

                      Present:     Mr. Abhishek Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                   Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General,
                                   Haryana.
                                              ****

                      SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

Petitioner-Labh Singh, aged 48 years, has filed this petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.149 dated 30.05.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Mullana, Ambala.

2. As per version in the FIR got registered by complainant-Raj Kumar, running Office/Shop of TV Cable for the last 23-24 years, it has been alleged as under:-

"xxx In the month of February, 2025, Labh Singh resident Saha, mobile number 9466104638 came to me and said that he works for Agro Nature Farming Company. In which we will plant a vermin compost plant in your field, for which you will have to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- as security and in return for which the company will also give you a commission of 10% every month and the company will lift and sell the fertilizer in your fields, which I got lured by him and got a total of Five Lakh Rupees JITENDER 2026.04.18 15:55 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-51870-2025 2 deposited in the company account through Labh Singh at the rate of Two and a Half Lakh Rupees per person for me and my friend Harbhajan Singh. The 2.5 Lakh of mine RTGS to my son Rishant through Kohli's account, which we paid through RTGS on 20 February 2025, after that neither any plant was planted in our field nor did we get any monthly commission. When we asked Labh Singh for money was to the and commission and told him about getting the plant installed, Labh Singh introduced us company's MD Rakesh Sharma and CMD Joginder Raj, who gave us a written document by giving false assurance and said that your payment will be made on 30 April 2025. But on the above mentioned date when we reached there with Labh Singh, they threatened us and said do whatever you want to do, the administration and the law are in our hands, don't mess with us. Or else we will get you killed, this Labh Singh is a Special Agent of Agro Nature Company and is looting by grabbing money from many people, we request you to register a case of fraud against Labh Singh, Rakesh Sharma, MD, Joginder Raj, CMD and get our hard earned money back, we have come to know that all these people are trying to flee abroad. Legal action should be taken against them. Complainant 1. Rajkumar S/O Shri Brij Lal, Police Station Mullana (Ambala) SD- Raj Kumar, 2. Harbhajan Singh S/O Shri Jagir Singh Kalalti Chowki, Police Station Mullana (Ambala)."

There are total three accused namely petitioner-Labh Singh, Rakesh Sharma and Joginder Raj. Total defrauded amount in this case is Rs.5 Lakhs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has already remained incarcerated inside jail for a period of more than 10 months and his further incarceration is of no useful purpose for the prosecution as nothing is to be recovered from his possession. Thus, counsel for the JITENDER 2026.04.18 15:55 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-51870-2025 3 petitioner prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate dated 16.04.2026 and on instructions from ASI Kulbir Singh submits that petitioner has remained inside jail for a period of 10 months and 11 days. However, he points out that there is another case registered against the petitioner i.e. FIR No.148 dated 18.05.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 61 of BNS, Police Station Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar. Thus, learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

5. I have considered the submissions addressed by the respective counsel.

6. Undisputedly, the amount involved in the case is Rs.5 Lakhs and allegations are yet to be finalized by the trial Court after adducing of complete evidence before it. Petitioner is inside jail for sufficiently long period i.e. 10 months and 11 days. The investigation has already been completed and after presentation of challan, charges were framed. It is admitted position that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. Obviously, conclusion of trial is likely to consume considerable time. The offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate.

Considering the above said circumstances in totality, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ JITENDER 2026.04.18 15:55 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-51870-2025 4 Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

7. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

8. The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

9. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled.

10. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.




                                                              (SANJAY VASHISTH)
                                                                   JUDGE
                      18.04.2026
                      jitender
                                     Whether speaking/ reasoned      :     Yes/ No
                                     Whether Reportable              :     Yes/ No




JITENDER
2026.04.18 15:55
I attest to the accuracy of
this document