[Cites 24, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 19 December, 2025
CRM-M-34358-2024 1
147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34358-2024
Date of Decision: 19.12.2025
Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
Present: Ms. Simran Kaur Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Shweta Nahata, DAG, Haryana.
***
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.229 dated 01.08.2023
registered against him, under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, at
Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, has filed the present petition for
grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Relevant facts as emerging from documents on record be noticed
hereinbelow:-
"Sh. Lakhwinder Singh-complainant, set the criminal law
in motion by filing a complaint requesting therein to initiate the
appropriate criminal proceedings against the following persons:-
i. Yash Narang, Bank Manager, HDFC Bank Branch Ratia;
ii. Ankush Bhatia, Bank official;
iii. Shaili wife of Ankush Bhatia;
iv. Jashandeep Singh;
v. Khan Chand,
vi. Rakesh
Complainant alleged that all the aforementioned persons
fraudulently withdrew amount of Rs.2 crores from his saving
account No.50100487889333, HDFC Bank, Ratia Branch by
1 of 10
appending his fake signatures. Complainant further alleged that
he is permanent resident of village Kunal, Tehsil Ratia, District
Fatehabad and is an agriculturist by profession. He had visited
Italy in connection with business affairs and had deposited money
in his aforesaid account for purchasing land in near future. When
he finalized the deal, he visited the bank to withdraw the money,
when he came to know that a massive fraud has been played upon
him by some unknown persons in conspiracy with the officers of
the HDFC bank, who had been withdrawing money from his
account on different dates. In the complaint details of those
transactions were given. Complainant specifically pointed out
that most of these transactions are in the name of co-accused
Shaili, whose husband Ankush Bhatia is a bank employee. He (c)
never transferred money in the account of Shaili or the present
petitioner nor did he sign any voucher or cheque. Immediately
when he came to know of this fraud, he brought the entire facts to
the notice of Branch Manager, Yash Narang, who initially assured
full cooperation and as also to return the money fraudulently
withdrawn from his (c) account. Complainant sought certain
information from the bank officials, who did not take any action
for the next 2-3 days. Since he had to visit Italy, he executed a
Power of Attorney in favour of his cousin brother, Kuldeep Singh.
His wife accompanied by Kuldeep Singh visited the bank when the
Branch Manager, Yash Narang refused to cooperate. Seeing this
apathetic attitude of the Bank officials, he immediately cut short
his visit and returned back to India. Complainant also pointed out
that on 29.04.2023, his FD of Rs.31,01,678.62/- was encashed
and the amount was transferred in his account. Voucher in this
regard was prepared by Ankush Bhatia, who mentioned that the
account holder had put his signatures on the said voucher in his
(Ankush Bhatia) presence whereas on the said day i.e. 29.04.2023
he was not present in India. Copy of the passport was also
enclosed by the complainant. It also came to the notice of
complainant that in his absence, accused persons had got issued
cheque book in his name without his knowledge and had
2 of 10
thereafter misused the same by forging his signatures. It is further
the plea of the complainant that he had never got the relevant
cheque book issued from the bank. Primarily with this backdrop,
he (C) alleged that fraudulent act on the part of all the accused
persons has caused immense financial, emotional and physical
trauma to him.
On the basis of the said complaint, criminal case vide
FIR No.229 dated 01.08.2023, u/s 409/420/467/468/471/120-B
IPC, was initially registered against Ankush Bhatia and Naresh
Kumar (petitioner). During investigation, the relevant record of
the bank were obtained. On 20.11.2023, co-accused Ankush
Bhatia was arrested, who during interrogation admitted to his
involvement in the commission of offence and also highlighted the
role of the present petitioner Naresh Kumar, who was working in
Ratia Branch of HDFC Bank as BSO. According to Ankush,
petitioner used to append fake signatures of Lakwinder Singh on
cheque books, voucher etc., thus facilitating transfer of funds.
On 08.01.2024, present petitioner was arrested who during
interrogation endorsed the stand of co-accused Ankush. Specimen
signatures of complainant and both the accused were obtained
and were sent to FSL to match with their admitted signatures.
Bank accounts of the suspected victims were also seized. The
details of the accounts wherein the money was deposited, was
also collected.
On culmination of the investigation qua the aforementioned
two accused (including petitioner), challan was filed. Both the
accused have been charge-sheeted. During the course of the trial,
an application u/s 173(8) Cr.PC was moved by complainant for
further investigating the matter.
3. Petitioner-accused, who was arrested on 08.01.2024 filed an
application for grant of bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fatehabad. The same was dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2024. Aggrieved of
which, the present petition has been filed.
3 of 10
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, co-accused Ankush Bhatia, who
at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Manager in Ratia Branch of the
HDFC Bank illegally transferred the money not only from the account of the
complainant but from the accounts of various other account holders, in the
account of his wife. Ankush was addicted to 'on-line' gambling and needed
huge money for the same, as he had suffered loss of about Rs.3,17,25,000/-.
Petitioner was compelled to follow the command of the senior officer, who was
the main beneficiary of the entire incident. The fact that nothing was recovered
at the instance of petitioner, further proves his innocence.
The next leg of submission raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that investigation qua petitioner was completed long ago on filing
of challan, charges were framed against him and co-accused Ankush.
Thereafter, 03 prosecution witnesses out of 23 have already been examined
even then likelihood of completion of the trial (offences being all magisterial
triable) in the near future is quite remote, as an application u/s 173(8) Cr.PC
filed by the complainant is still pending. When appreciated in the light of
submissions advanced hereinabove, learned counsel contends that petitioner,
who has been in custody since 08.01.2024, deserves a lenient view to be taken
in his favour, his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose as
the same would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Prayer for allowing the petition has been made.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the request for
grant of the bail, has drawn attention of the Court to the status reports dated
06.09.2024 and 01.02.2025 filed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, HPS, DSP, Ratia,
District Fatehabad and Ms. Astha Modi, IPS, Superintendent of Police,
4 of 10
Fatehabad, respectively, wherein apart from mentioning the factual backdrop
of the case leading to the lodging of FIR, the modus operandi in which the
offence was committed has also been highlighted. Role played by the
petitioner has also been elaborated upon, who as per prosecution in conspiracy
with the other accused-Ankush Bhatia withdrew huge amount from the saving
account of the complainant by forging his(c) signatures on vouchers, cheque
etc. Surprisingly enough, it also came to the notice of the Investigating Officer
that on 29.04.2023, F.D. of the complainant amounting to Rs.31 lakh was
encashed and the amount was transferred in account of wife of Ankush Bhatia.
Petitioner had forged signatures of complainant. At that point in time,
complainant was not present in India. In the light of seriousness of allegations
dismissal of petition has been prayed for. On a pointed query raised by this
Court, learned State counsel admits that HDFC Bank has returned the entire
amount to the complainant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State
counsel and perused the documents on record.
7. It is settled principle that grant of Bail is the rule and jail is the
exception. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of
Punjab",((1980) 2 SCC 5) held as under:-
"27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right
to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to
the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as long
back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra
v. King-Emperor [AIR 1924 Cal 476, 479, 480 : 25 Cri LJ 732] that the
object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that
the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail
should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party
will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which, significantly,
are the 'Meerut Conspiracy cases' observations are to be found
regarding the right to bail which deserve a special mention. In K.N.
Joglekar v. Emperor [AIR 1931 All 504 : 33 Cri LJ 94] it was
5 of 10
observed, while dealing with Section 498 which corresponds to the
present Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred upon the Sessions
Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which were not
handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which
corresponds to the present Section 437. It was observed by the court
that there was no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle
governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and
that the only principle which was established was that the discretion
should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v. Hutchinson [AIR 1931
All 356, 358 : 32 Cri LJ 1271] it was said that it was very unwise to
make an attempt to lay down any particular rules which will bind the
High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the
discretion of the court unfettered. According to the High Court, the
variety of cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely
classified and it is dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases
and to say that in particular classes a bail may be granted but not in
other classes. It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the
various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail
is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys
freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to
properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably
innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every
opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person
must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.
28. Coming nearer home, it was observed by Krishna Iyer, J., in
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor [(1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978
SCC (Cri) 115] that: (SCC p. 242, para 1)
"... the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and
burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed
jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial
process. . . . After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is
fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure
established by law. The last four words of Article 21 are the life of
that human right."
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1
SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] it was observed by Goswami, J.,
who spoke for the court, that: (SCC p. 129, para 29)
"29"There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of
granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will
govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or
cancelling bail."
30. In AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE (2d, Volume 8, p.806, para
39), it is stated:
"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court,
the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts
and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the
6 of 10
detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his
appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment
of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or
bond would effect that end."
It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not
depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the
cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any
one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity
or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @
Polia and another",(2020(2) SCC 118) held as under:-
"11. The power to grantz bail under Section 439 is of a wide
amplitude. But it is well settled that though the grant of bail
involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, it has
to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3
SCC 598, Justice Umesh Banerjee, speaking for a two judge
Bench of this Court, laid down the factors that must guide the
exercise of the power to grant bail in the following terms:
"3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order - but,
however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft
of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to
record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the
contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court
and facts, however, do always vary from case to case .The
nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for
the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is
the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however,
dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.
4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be
attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed
at this juncture, though however, the same are only
illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The
considerations being:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind
not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity
of the punishment, if the accusation entails a
conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the
7 of 10
accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a
threat for the complainant should also weigh with the
court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie
satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of genuineness
that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant
of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as
to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of
bail."
12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail
involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the
nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima
facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No
straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application
for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether
a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter
into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish
beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the
accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required
to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a
balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of
the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system.
Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court
must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles
set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.
In Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another,
2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 586, Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the
High Court in granting bail to the second respondent/accused on the ground
8 of 10
that he had been in custody for a long period and the possibility of the trial
being concluded in the near future was remote.
Factual aspects of the case have already been noted in para 2 of
this order. In the status report, the role played by the petitioner has been
highlighted. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner and the fact that HDFC Bank has deposited the entire amount in the
account of the complainant, as also that investigations qua accused-petitioner
are complete and completion of trial is likely to take some time, petitioner, who
has been in custody since 08.01.2024, deserves a lenient view to be taken in his
favour by granting him the concession of bail, subject to his furnishing
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief
Judicial Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall also abide by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will surrender his passport and will not leave the
country without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ii) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the
trial.
(iii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(iv) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and
every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of
Court.
(v) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which
he is suspected of.
(vi) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce,
threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence
in any manner.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
(viii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to
the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the
conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the
petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall
be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court,
stating the reason for the same.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the
petitioner.
It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
9 of 10
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made
herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the aforesaid observations.
Accordingly, present petition is allowed.
(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
19.12.2025 JUDGE
Parveen kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable :Yes/No
10 of 10
