[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudershan Kumar Pahwa vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.20368 of 2026
Sudershan Kumar Pahwa ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 23.04.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.04.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 27.04.2026
website
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short
authenticity of this order /judgment
"BNSS") seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
51 13.03.2025 Arya Nagar 319(2), 316(2), 318(4),
Rohtak, District 336(3), 338, 340(2) and
Rohtak 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For
short "BNS")
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
written complaint submitted by the Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank,
Civil Lines, Rohtak branch, alleging therein that one account was operative
in the name of Dhanno Devi in the concerned branch of the Bank. The said
Dhanno Devi had died on 22.06.2016. On 22.05.2024, his daughter Sushila
Kataria approached the bank for updating the record and then it was revealed that
on 26.03.2019, some female by impersonating herself as Smt. Dhanno Devi, had
approached the bank officials to operate the abovesaid account, which was
lying in dormant position. The concerned officer after asking her to provide
KYC norms and depositing Rs.100/- in the account to make it active, had
made it active. It was alleged that the account was made active by the then
Senior Manager Sudarshan Kumar Pahwa i.e. the present petitioner in
connivance with accused Ritu Kangra and some unknown persons by
depositing Rs.100/- in the account of Smt. Dhanno Devi. The documents,
which were received and used to make the account operative were found to
be missing from the bank record. On 26.03.2019 also, by making account in
operative category, withdrawal of a sum of Rs.100/- had been made in
favour of unknown person. The withdrawal was posted by accused Ritu
Kangra, who was posted as Manager and was approved/passed by the
authenticity of this order /judgment
present petitioner. It was also revealed that on 30.03.2019, withdrawal of a
sum of Rs.2 lakhs and on 16.04.2019 withdrawal of another sum of Rs.1.60
lakhs had been passed by the present petitioner and accused Vinod Kumar
Khurana and Prem Kumar Dhingra, employees/officials of the bank.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were
initiated. The present petitioner was joined into investigation on 27.03.2026
and was formally arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement
admitting his involvement in the crime by updating the KYC of account of
victim Dhanno Devi by using his own ID and affixing his thumb marks on
withdrawal vouchers and withdrawing the amount from account of victim
Dhanno Devi. Investigation now stands concluded.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has
been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 27.03.2026. The
investigation stands concluded. The subject offences are triable by
Magistrate. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody
any more. He is suffering from 50% physical disability due to post polio
paralysis and is not in a position to properly walk. He is also patient of
diabetes mellitus. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is,
therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has
argued that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious as he is not
only accused of withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from the bank
account of deceased Dhanno Devi by updating the KYC details from his
authenticity of this order /judgment
own official ID but is also alleged to have affixed his thumb impressions on
the withdrawal vouchers thereby committing offence of forgery and also
causing destruction of the same subsequently in order to cause
disappearance of the evidence of offence by tearing of the pages of the
vouchers and entries registered from the bank records. The offence
punishable under Section 338 of BNS is punishable with imprisonment for
life. The case is at its nascent stages. The medical condition of the petitioner
is normal as per the report of the medical officer. It is, therefore, argued that
the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
7. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences of
cheating, forgery and use of forged documents while being posted on the
post of Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Rohtak Branch
by updating the KYC details of deceased Dhanno Devi by using his official
ID, then activating her account without there being any application moved
by her legal representatives and any other person on her behalf, thereafter by
filling the withdrawal vouchers and getting an amount of Rs.3,60,000/-
withdrawn and thereafter by causing destruction of the vouchers and entry
record. The allegations against him are serious in nature. The trial is to
commence and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any
inordinate delay in conclusion of the same. The petitioner has been booked
for commission of offence punishable under Section 338 of BNS as well
which is punishable up to life imprisonment. It is well settled proposition of
authenticity of this order /judgment
law that grant of bail is a discretionary relief to be granted or denied based
on specific facts and circumstance of each case and there cannot be any
exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for grant of
bail. The factors such as nature of accusations, severity of punishment if the
accusations entail a conviction and nature of evidence in support of
accusations are to be seen. That apart, reasonable apprehension of tampering
with evidence or threatening the material witnesses are also to be weighed.
Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered.
8. In light of the foregoing legal principles and other
circumstances as discussed above, this Court finds no compelling ground to
allow this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
9. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
27.04.2026 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order /judgment
