Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 13 November, 2025
CRM-M No.62537 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
233
*****
CRM-M No.62537 of 2025
Date of decision : 13.11.2025
Ashwani Kumar .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Neeraj Goel, Advocate and
Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.316 dated 1.7.2023 under
Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Baldev
Nagar, District Ambala.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
'Respected Sir, it is prayed from you that I Mohit Kumar S/o Sh. Lal
Chand R/o H.No. 2329, Gandhi Colony, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City gave
Rupees 5 Lakhs 70 thousand to Ashwani Kumar S/o Maya Ram R/o
Village Alawalpur, Near Ravidas Mandir, Manunamajra, Ambala for
getting enrolled in Government Job, which were given on 08.07.2022- Rs.
1,50,000/- and on 19.07.2022- Rs. 1,90,000/- and on 21.07.2022- Rs.
2,00,000/- and remaining Rs. 30,000/-through UPI. But even after waiting
for a long time when I was not enrolled in Government Job then when I
1 of 6
asked Ashwani Kumar for money back then he gave me cheque of Rs.
1,50,000/-. When on 08.09.2022 cheque was presented then it got
bounced, thereafter 1 got register a complaint in Police Station Baldev
Nagar, then he paid Rs. 2,70,000/-. And for remaining money he gave me
a cheque for 31.12.2022, which was presented in bank and it got bounce
due to insufficient funds in account, thereafter from that day till today he is
ignoring. When we went to his house for asking money then he took action
upon me and threatened to life. Whichever documents are required for
investigation, are attached along with. Kindly get my money back. Kindly
take action accordingly. Sd/-Mohit Kumar 9888235167.'
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 17.6.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question by the FIR-
complainant primarily on account of a money/business dispute. Learned
counsel has further argued that the investigation qua the FIR is complete
and trial is to take long. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by
arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the
petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned
State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated
11.11.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. Before delving into the rival contentions, it would be apposite
to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as
Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof
2 of 6
reads as under:
"10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation
of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law
authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of
community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the
considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the
constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates
intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal
of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of
justice-to the individual involved and society affected.
11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of
reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the
bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better
chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody.
And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be
close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the,
applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail
Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public
expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or
disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally
important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our
sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of
avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a
Policy favouring release justly sensible.
12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation
of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along
an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme
of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness
should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even,
through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other
resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace
by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing
offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be
provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on
the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail
orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and
humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to
the values of our constitution."
6.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as
Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as
under:-
"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 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."
3 of 6
6.2. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as
Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the
earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of
bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an
accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after
conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried
and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship.
From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons
should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the
trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country,
it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined
in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any
matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief
that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most
extraordinary circumstances."
7. The petitioner was arrested on 17.6.2025 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 17.7.2025.
Total 9 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been
examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take
its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to
debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of
trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these
rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing
tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the
petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the
prosecution evidence.
7.1 As per custody certificate dated 11.11.2025 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
4 of 6
of 4 months and 23 days. As per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in 4 more cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the
antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering
a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a
ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of
regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the
facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)
586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in
case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments
of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State
of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana,
1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial
is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However,
in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned
CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
5 of 6
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial
Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the
Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall
not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
13.11.2025
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
