[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vijay Sharma @ Ashwani Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2026

                     CRM-M No.21588 of 2026                                              -1-


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                     228
                                                      *****

                                                                    CRM-M No.21588 of 2026
                                                                   Date of decision : 24.4.2026
                                                                  Date of uploading : 24.4.2026

                     Vijay Sharma @ Ashwani Chaudhary                    .............Petitioner
                                                        Versus
                     State of Haryana                                     .......Respondent

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

                     Present: Mr. S.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner

                                Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana

                                Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate, for the complainant

                                ---

                     SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS

2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.101

dated 6.6.2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 of IPC, registered

at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner

alongwith main accused Pavinder and others met the complainant by

impersonating Kavinder as an owner of 15 bighas land and, defrauded the

complainant by making him to part away with huge amount of ₹45 lakhs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner

is in custody since 8.12.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the

prime role attributed to the petitioner as per the case of the prosecution, is

that he has introduced the complainant to Kavinder. Learned counsel has

further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more

than 4 months. Learned counsel has further argued that the case

emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one and the challan

(charge sheet) already stands presented. 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 23.4.2026

in Court, which is taken on record.

4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the

petitioner is a habitual offender. Learned counsel has further argued that

the allegations levelled against the petitioner are direct and serious in

nature and in case he has granted the concession of bail, there is all

likelihood of the petitioner to flee from the hands of justice and interfering

with the prosecution evidence.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the

available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 8.12.2025 wherein after

investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 6.3.2026 and

subsequently filed. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited but

none has been examined till date. The trial emanating from the FIR in

question is magisterial one. It is, thus, indubitable that culmination of trial

will take its own time. At this juncture, 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 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."

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 ASHWANI KUMAR 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."

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.

6.3 As per custody certificate dated 23.4.2026 filed by learned State

counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 4

months and 16 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is

stated to be involved in 01 more FIR(s). 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.

7. 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 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.