[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
CRM-M-4094-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CRM-M-4094-2026
Decided on : 27.04.2026
SURESH KUMAR
......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Karanvir Hooda, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate,
for the complainant.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a
criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed
hereunder:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner(s) No. Station
Suresh Kumar, 149 08.05.2025 316(2), 318(4) Ambala Ambala
aged about 66 of BNS Cantt.
years (sections 338,
336(3), 340(2),
61(2) and 238
of BNS added
later on)
2. As per the case of prosecution, petitioner, a retired Hawaldar
from the Indian Air Force, allegedly induced the complainant-Rinku
Dhiman, with the promise of securing a peon's job. In furtherance of this
assurance, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the
petitioner and his wife. It is further alleged that a forged
appointment/joining letter was handed over to the complainant. Upon
scrutiny of the said document, the concerned authorities sought an
explanation from the complainant, which led to the revelation that
petitioner and his wife had received the aforesaid amount on the pretext
of arranging the job. It has also come on record that complainant had
raised a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to arrange the said payment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations are false and fabricated. It is contended that the complainant
himself has admitted of paying money for securing employment, thereby
implicating himself in an illegal act as reflected in the FIR.
It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since
31.05.2025, i.e., for a period of approximately 10 months and 26 days.
No further recovery is to be effected from him, as the final report has
already been presented before the concerned Court.
4. Out of total 9 prosecution witnesses, only one has been
examined so far, and therefore, conclusion of the trial is likely to take a
considerable amount of time. Thus, counsel prays for grant of regular bail
to the petitioner in the present case.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as counsel
for the complainant is unable to dispute any of the factual assertion as
stated by counsel for the petitioner today before this Court, including the
total incarceration period undergone by the petitioner.
However, learned State counsel submits that apart from the
present case, petitioner is involved in three more criminal cases of similar
nature. Thus, he submits that petitioner does not deserve the concession
of regular bail in the present case. Hence, present petition is liable to be
dismissed.
6. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by learned
counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available before it.
7. Undoubtedly, all the offences alleged against the petitioner
are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate. Petitioner is in custody
since 31.05.2025, i.e., for a period of approximately 10 months and 26
days. Furthermore, nothing remains to be recovered from his possession,
as the final report has already been presented before the concerned Court.
Out of total 9 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been
examined so far, and therefore, conclusion of the trial is likely to take
considerable time.
8. In view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of
allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed here
above, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to
the petitioner in the present case.
Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief
Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not
required in any other case.
9. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner
directly or indirectly.
10. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case.
Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an
independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
11. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
27.04.2026
Lavisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
