[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M No.10220 of 2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
229 CRM-M No.10220 of 2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.04.2026
Lakhwinder Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Balraj Sharma, Advocate;
Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
This is first petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section
483 of the 'Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023'. This petition pertains
to a case arising out of FIR No.146 dated 19.04.2025, for the commission of
offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 506 of Indian Penal Code and
Sections 10 and 24 of the Immigration Act, Police Station Thanesar City,
District Kurukshetra.
2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of
'Gurmeet Kaur', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was
stated by the above-named complainant that her son namely 'Gurvinder Singh'
was an aspirant to settle abroad, and with regard to above he came to know that
the petitioner, along with his son, was running an immigration firm under the
name of 'Cliff Education Immigration Pvt. Ltd. Kurukshetra'. As per
CRM-M No.10220 of 2026 (O&M) 2
complainant she came in contact of the petitioner, and his son, who assured her
that for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- they would arrange immigration papers for her
son. According to complainant, initially an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid
by the complainant to the petitioner and his son, and subsequently, in several
installments a sum of Rs. 22,60,000/- (total) has been paid. The complainant
further alleged that her son was initially sent to Dubai and from Dubai he was
supposed to be sent to USA, via Azerbaijan and Turkey, but he was returned to
India, from Dubai. It was further alleged by the complainant that despite
assurance and despite receipt of money his son was not sent to USA and thus,
she has been cheated.
3. It is the case of prosecution that in view of above mentioned
complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.
4. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the
petitioner. The same be taken on record. Reply in the form of affidavit, duly
sworn by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Kurukshetra, has
already been filed.
5. Heard.
6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is a simplly agriculturist who has nothing to do with the firm 'M/s
Cliff Education Immigration Pvt. Ltd.'. According to learned counsel for the
petitioner the above mentioned firm is being run by his son, who was
responsible for all the activities related to the above mentioned firm. As per
learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner
CRM-M No.10220 of 2026 (O&M) 3
has clean antecedents, and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future,
and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail.
7. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned
arguments. According to learned State counsel the petitioner was hand in
glove with his son, and that is why in the FIR, itself, it has been specifically
mentioned that at the time of striking the deal he was accompanying the prime
accused, i.e. his son 'Rajbir Singh'. The learned State counsel has also
contended that the family members of the petitioner, i.e. his son and wife, who
are co-accused in the present case, are absconding, and that even the
documents pertaining to the complainant's son have not been recovered in the
present case. The leaned State counsel has sought for dismissal of present
petition.
8. The record has been perused carefully.
9. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant
factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in
the present petition:-
i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more
than four months;
ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;
iii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence, for
which the petitioner is being prosecuted, is imprisonment up to
seven years;
iv) that the investigation is already complete, and therefore,
CRM-M No.10220 of 2026 (O&M) 4
nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of
petitioner;
v) that the investigation and trial of the case are not likely to be
concluded in near future;
vi) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to
serve any purpose;
vii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the
witnesses;
viii) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail,
the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.
10. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh
and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that
"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
CRM-M No.10220 of 2026 (O&M) 5
been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal
jurisprudence or to our society. 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".
11. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation'
(2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it
has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is
abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the
Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to
think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications
will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up
consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of
a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal
with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice".
12. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of
CRM-M No.10220 of 2026 (O&M) 6
six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be
said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has
been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and
extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our
justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and
the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in
order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".
13. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and
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 an undertrial prisoner, as
mandated by Hon'ble Apex court in 'Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab
and another' 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.
14. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid
factors, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail,
and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
15. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered
to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, the abovesaid benefit shall be
subject to following conditions:-
i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
CRM-M No.10220 of 2026 (O&M) 7
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any other authority;
ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish
the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change
in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial;
and
iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission
of trial Court.
16. It is, however, made clear that any observation made
hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the
same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
21.04.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
