Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chetan vs State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2025
CRM-M No.64605 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
252
*****
CRM-M No.64605 of 2025
Date of decision : 20.11.2025
Date of uploading : 20.11.2025
Chetan .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and
Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, 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.367 dated 20.7.2024 under
Sections 406, 420 and 370 of the IPC & Sections 10 and 24 of
Immigration Act (Section 370 of IPC deleted and Section 120-B of IPC
added later on), registered at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, District
Kurukshetra.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
'To Superintendent of Police Kurukshetra Haryana. Subject-Regarding
missing report of my Son (mr Gagan S/o Gulab Chand R/o Vill Sirsla Distt
1 of 7
Kurukshetra-136131 (passport No V0817460). R/Sir, It is intimated that
my son Mr. Gagan S/o Gulab Chand R/o Sirsala, District Kurukshetra
(Age-22 Years) (Passport No. V0817460) has travelled to Dubai by flight
on 31.10.2023 and stayed in Dubai till 02.11.2023. 2. On dated
13.04.2024, my son called from mobile No. 89503-49931 to my wife on
mobile 95883-14356 and told that: "He went to Qatar and Jakarta via
Bali (Indonesia) and he stayed over one month. In continuation above
journey, he went to Malaysia on 17.12.2023, Bangkok (Thailand) on
14.01.2024 and Russia 06.02.2024. He reached Belarus on 16.02.2024.
On dated 16.02.2024, my son Gagan met with Mr. Gaurav, Travel Agent,
there alongwith 28 persons. They all went to Belarus by road in search of
work on 13.04.2024. My son and three other persons were separated from
the group and caught by Belarus Army. During journey, they all fell sick
and the army personnel got them admitted in hospital for medical
treatment and left them at border area (Zero Point). He told that his health
is deteriorating. 3. Since, 13.04.2024, the mobile of my son is switched off.
I have no information about whereabouts of my son Gagan. My son is
missing and in no contact situation. All family members are worried and
under trauma. 4. My son has applied for immigration through Mr. Rohit
S/o Niranjan Singh, VPO Sirsala, District Kurukshetra-136132 (India No.
91 8307721010). I have paid Rs. 10.5 Lakh for work permit. I have tried at
various levels to know the whereabouts of my son. The travel agent is also
not cooperating and not helping to find out the location of my son. He
might know the whereabouts of my son.5. In view of above, it is requested
that Ministry of External Affairs, Gol, immigration authorities/local police
may be directed to take strict action against the travel agent and the life of
my son could be saved, who is missing since 13.04.2024. I shall be
thankful. Yours faithfully, Sd/ Gulab Chand Dated: 19.07.2024 (Gulab
Chand)R/o. VPO Sirsala, Kurukshetra Mob:-95883-14356.'
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner is in custody since 4.8.2025. Learned senior counsel has further
argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in
question. Learned senior counsel has further urged that the prime
prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is disclosure
2 of 7
statement of co-accused Mohit and transaction of ₹50,000/- into his
account. Learned senior counsel has further urged that the concerned trial
Court vide order dated 27.10.2025 has framed charges against the
petitioner (herein) only under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC &
Sections 10 and 24 of Immigration Act, which is triable by Magistrate.
Learned senior counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a man with
clean antecedents. 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
19.11.2025 in Court, which is taken on record.
Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf
of the complainant, which is taken on record. He has argued that there are
direct and serious allegations against the petitioner and the real culprit is
still missing.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. 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 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
3 of 7
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
4 of 7
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."
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 4.8.2025 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 29.9.2025.
Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been
5 of 7
examined. It is, thus, indubitable that culmination of trial will take its
own time. It is not in dispute before this Court that as of now charges
were framed against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420 read with
Section 120-B of IPC & Sections 10/24 of Immigration Act, and the trial
in question is magisterial one. 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.
As per custody certificate dated 19.11.2025 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 3 months and 10 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.
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
documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before
6 of 7
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
20.11.2025
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
