Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karanjit Singh Alias Gurvinder Singh ... vs State Of Haryana on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037757
CRM-M-13666-2025 - 1-
243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13666-2025
DECIDED ON: 19.03.2025
KARANJIT SINGH @ GURVINDER SINGH @ GURI
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. M.S. Kathuria, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Pannu, Addl. AG, Haryana.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS has been
invoked seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.296, dated 30.06.2024,
under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, registered at Police
Station K.U.K, District Kurukshetra.
2. Facts
The prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version of
the FIR reads as under:-
''A complaint No. 922 dated 06.06.2024 was received at the police
station through postal mail from the office of the Superintendent of
Police, Kurukshetra, which is as follows To, The Superintendent of
Police, Kurukshetra. Subject: Application against 1. Basant Kumar
(Mobile Number 98137- 43840) resident of Radaur, District
Yamunanagar, 2. Parmod (Mobile Number 7988959007) resident of
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037757
CRM-M-13666-2025 - 2-
Village Chorpura, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, 3. Assim (Mobile
Number 9802544347) son of Shri Satyawan Sahrawat, resident of
Kishangarh Manimajra, Chandigarh, 4. Manjeet Sahrawat (Mobile
Number 9915510075) resident of Kishangarh Manimajra,
Chandigarh, 5. Guri (Mobile Number 8437089914) Regarding
cheating and fraud of Rs. 35,00,000/- (thirty-five lakh rupees)
committed by the aforementioned accused in the name of sending
abroad. Sir, the applicant humbly requests as follows 1. The applicant
Shubham Chauhan, son of Shri Kuldeep Singh, is a resident of Village
Amin, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, and is an educated,
peace-loving person. 2. On 14.02.2024, I was at home in my village
when I had a conversation from my mobile number 9896961323 with
the number 8437089914, where the person introduced himself as
Guri. He told me over the phone that he is involved in sending people
abroad and that he only takes payment after sending them abroad. I
was convinced by his words and sent all the required documents
through WhatsApp from my friend Saurabh's and my maternal cousin
Amit Kumar's phone. After reviewing all the documents, the accused
assured me that he would get visas for Australia for both of us and
send us to Australia. The accused then told me over the phone to
deposit Rs. 36,00,000/-(thirty-six lakh rupeesj at shop number 24 - A
in New Anaj Mandi, Pundri, with M/S Jati Ram Praveen Kumar Aadti
(commission agent), saying that he would collect the money from the
Aadti (commission agent) after sending us abroad. He also assured
that if he could not send us abroad, the money would be returned to
me. On 23.02.2024, I went with my friend Krishan Kumar to deposit
Rs. 36,00,000/- (thirty-six lakh rupees) at shop number 24 - A in New
Anaj Mandi, Pundri, with M/S Jati Ram Praveen Kumar Aadti
(commission agent), and obtained a receipt on the Aadti (commission
agent)'s letterhead However, on 26.02.2024, the accused informed me
over the phone that he could not send us abroad at that time and
instructed me to collect the money back from the Aadti. I then
retrieved my money from the Aadti and returned the letterhead receipt
to him. 4. But a few days later, on 04.03.2024, the accused told me to
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037757
CRM-M-13666-2025 - 3-
go to Delhi Airport, where I would receive the visa and ticket.
Following his instructions, on 04.03.2024, I went to Delhi with my
friend Saurabh and my maternal cousin Amit Kumar. Then, with the
wrong intention of cheating me out of my money, the accused told me
to deposit Rs. 35,00,000/- (thirty- five lakh rupees) at shop number 26
M/S J.VG Trading Co. in Radaur Mandi, District Yamunanagar,
stating that both visas had arrived. He also told me that I would need
to go to Mumbai, where I would receive the visas for Saurabh and
Amit Kumar. I went to Mumbai with Saurabh and Amit Kumar.
Through my friend Krishan, I had the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/-
(thirty-five lakh rupees) deposited at the address provided by the
accused. At the shop number 26 M/S J.V.G Trading Co. in Radaur
Mandi, District Yamunanagar, Basant Kumar (mobile number 98137-
43840), a resident of Radaur, District Yamunanagar, who was the
Adati, was present along with Parmod (mobile number 7988959007),
a resident of Village Chorpura, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, who was
the accountant, and Assim (mobile number 9802544347), son of Mr.
Sagawan Sahrawat, and Manjit Sahrawat (mobile number
9915510075), both residents of Kishangarh, Manimajra,
Chandigarh. All these accused conspired together, counted all the
money from Krishan, and provided a receipt on the letterhead of shop
number 26 M/S J.V.G Trading Co. for Rs. 35,00,000/- (thirty-five lakh
rupees) to my friend Krishan Kumar. The next day, the mobile number
8437089914 of Guri was switched off, which made me believe that my
Rs. 35,00,000/- (thirty-five lakh rupees) were safely kept with the
Adati at shop number 26 M/S J.V.G Trading Co. in Radaur Mandi,
District Yamunanagar. However, when I went to shop number 26 M/S
J.V.G Trading Co. in Radaur Mandi, District Yamunanagar on
10.03.2024, I found the shop locked. On the same day, I went with my
friend Krishan to the house of Vikram Singh, the real owner of shop
number 26 M/S J.V.G Trading Co., in Village Hadtan, Radaur Mandi,
District Yamunanagar. Vikram Singh informed me that he was the
actual owner of the shop and that Basant Kumar and Parmod Kumar,
along with the other accused, had conspired to create a fake
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037757
CRM-M-13666-2025 - 4-
letterhead of his shop and pretended to be the owners, thereby
cheating me out of Rs. 35,00,000/- (thirty-five lakh rupees). Vikram
Singh called Basant Kumar, Parmod Kumar, and Assim to his home in
Village Hadtan on 11.03.2024. Everyone sat together and held a
meeting (panchayat). During this meeting, Assim, through one of his
friends, reported to Dial 112 that he had been kidnapped. Shortly
afterward, the police arrived, and everyone present was called to the
Kheri Lakha Singh police post. The next day, on 12.03.2024, a
panchayat was held at the police post, during which the accused
returned Rs. 3,85,000/- to me. In this meeting, the accused asked for
time until 27.03.2024 to return all the money, with the responsibility
for ensuring payment taken by Surender, the Sarpanch of Lavana
village. On 19.03.2024, Basant Kumar's son Sahil transferred Rs.
1,00,000/- to my bank account, and on the next day, 20.03.2024, Rs.
1,12,000/- was given to me. After this, on 27.03.2024, all the accused
and Surender, the Sarpanch of Lavana village who had taken
responsibility for payment, started making excuses over the phone.
Subsequently, I filed a complaint, No. 166-KB, оп 04.04.2024 with the
Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra. The Economic Cell,
Kurukshetra summoned the accused, and they promised to resolve the
matter by 06.05.2024. They also provided an affidavit on 19.04.2024,
including two checks: one for Rs. 10,00,000/- dated 20.05.2024, and
another for Rs. 13,20,000/- dated 25.05.2024. When I presented the
first check at the bank on 20.05.2024, it bounced on 21.05.2024. The
second check, which I deposited on 30.05.2024, also bounced. All the
accused conspired to defraud me by pretending to secure an
Australian visa and sending me abroad. They created a fake
letterhead, provided me with a receipt for Rs. 35,00,000/- and
deceived me. I suspect that Assim, son of Mr. Satyawan Sahrawat,
residing in Kishangarh, Manimajra, Chandigarh, was impersonating
Guri and communicating with me through phone number
8437089914. I have documents related to this application which I can
present upon request. Request: Therefore, I request that considering
the above facts, strict legal action be taken against the accused by a
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037757
CRM-M-13666-2025 - 5-
competent officer, and my money be recovered from the accused, so
that the common man's faith in the administration remains intact.'
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no direct evidence to
connect the petitioner with the alleged fraud. Moreover the petitioner has never
received the alleged amount i.e., Rs.36,00,000/-, as the same was received by the
co-accused Basant Kumar and Pramod Kumar, who have already been granted the
concession of bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.12.2024 & 03.12.2024
(Annexures P-3 & P-5 respectively) passed in CRM-M-50856-2024 & CRM-M-
59532-2024 respectively. He has placed reliance upon the orders dated 23.08.2024
& 06.09.2024 passed in CRM-M-40755-2024, 42641-2024 (Annexures P-2 and P-
4) whereby the co-accused of the petitioner namely Assim and Manjit Singh have
already been granted the concession of bail by this Court. He has further argued
that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean. He submits that no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as conclusion of trial
would take long time.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance
notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the
petitioner is behind bars for the last 5 months and 3 days. He prays for dismissal
of the present petition stating that the allegations against the petitioner are serious
in nature.
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037757
CRM-M-13666-2025 - 6-
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner is not the
beneficiary of the amount in question, as the same was received other co-accused
namely Basant Kumar and Pramod Kumar added with the fact that the antecedents
of the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, co-
accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, and as per the principle
of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is
proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands
presented on 07.12.2024, charges are yet to be framed and total 24 prosecution
witnesses have been cited for examination, which is sufficient for this Court to
infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and detaining
the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered
in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and
putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant
paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed
to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our
criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused
with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and
does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other
offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is
that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or
in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may
wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic
principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037757
CRM-M-13666-2025 - 7-
and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This
does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of
judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of
decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether
denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts
and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations
when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the
evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not
find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a
strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial
custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to
ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations
to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding
or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if
an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due
to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a
factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It
is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a
first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the
nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty
or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely
important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by
incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been
taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a
judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or
an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037757
CRM-M-13666-2025 - 8-
several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an
accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the
requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is
enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other
problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in
1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex
Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in
Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609
going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference
was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC
565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v.
King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be withheld
as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson,
AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is
the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is
therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for
bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be
granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within
the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that
discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a
humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant
of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance,
thereby making the grant of bail illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair
and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This
constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex
court in "Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,
Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037757
CRM-M-13666-2025 - 9-
conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view
the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and
the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
5. Relief:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner
is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
19.03.2025 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
