Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 22 May, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-28038-2026 -1-
215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28038-2026
Date of Decision: 22.05.2026
Sonu ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Chahit Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.87 dated 15.03.2024, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case is that the FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant -Ankush. It was alleged that he had friendship with Harsh since childhood and they are on visiting terms with each other and Harsh told him that his friend Jasbir Nagar can secure a job for him in Railway Department as he had good acquaintance in Railway Department and his relatives are also serving in Railway Department. Thereafter, Jaibir asked the complainant and his father that for securing job, about 6,00,000/- to 7,00,000/- have to be paid to the officers. At different times complainant and his father paid a sum of 6,50,000/- in total to Jaibir and further when the complainant alongwith his father and Harsh visited at the house of Jaibir and his brother Raj Kumar, they got furious and threatened them not to visit their house again, failing which they have to face the dire consequences. They further stated that they have duped many persons in the name of securing job for them but those persons could not trouble them. They further stated that they have also duped the complainant SHARMILA DEVI 2026.05.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28038-2026 -2- stating that he can do whatever he can. Hence, the complainant got lodged the present FIR. Investigation commenced. During investigation, the involvement of petitioner in this case surfaced as he obtained Rs.22,000/- from accused Jaibir. Thus, the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused and resultantly, he was arrested on 31.07.2025. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial commenced. The petitioner approached learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit, application was declined after hearing both the sides by learned Court vide order dated 18.04.2026. Hence, aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present petition for grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity with that of the co- accused, namely, Balbir Singh. He has drawn the attention of this Court to a common order dated 01.04.2026 passed in CRM-M-11730-2026, whereby, co-accused Balbir Singh, has been granted regular bail by this Court. He submits that on the basis of the parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail as the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the said co-accused, who has already been granted bail.
4. Learned State counsel has endorsed the factum of grant of bail to the co-accused of the petitioner as stated above and has not denied that the petitioner is at par with the co-accused, namely, Balbir Singh. On instructions, he submits that out of total 19 prosecution witnesses, 04 witnesses remain to be examined. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the SHARMILA DEVI 2026.05.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28038-2026 -3- record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 31.07.2025. Co-accused, namely, Balbir Singh is stated to be on regular bail and case of the petitioner is at par with that of the co-accused. Custody certificate of the petitioner shows that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 09 months & 20 days as on 20.05.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is facing prosecution in two other cases, however, he is on bail in one case.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
8. It is being clarified that in case the petitioner does not furnish bail/surety bonds within a period of one week from today, his custody will not be counted in the present case after one week.
9. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
22.05.2026 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
SHARMILA DEVI
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
2026.05.22 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document