[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 28 April, 2026
CRM-M-70172-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
121
CRM-M-70172-2025
Decided on : 28.04.2026
Subhash Sharma . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and another . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Nikhil Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Haryana
assisted by ASI Prem Kumar.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
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 here-under:-
Name of FIR Date Section(s) Police District
Petitioner(s) No. Station
Subhash 42 01.03.2025 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of City Kurukshetra
Sharma BNS, 2023 Pehowa
2. As per allegations in FIR, complainant Gurmeet Singh got
registered FIR alleging that Vicky Sharma, co-accused of the petitioner,
demanded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for sending complainant's nephew
(bhanja) Paramjeet Singh to America. An amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid
to the present petitioner Subhash Sharma for the said purpose. Neither the
said amount was returned to the complainant by the petitioner, nor any
arrangement was made to send his nephew (bhanja) to USA.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has
been registered against the petitioner and he has already remained inside the
jail for more than 10 months. Thus, in the given circumstances, learned
counsel seeks concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody
certificate dated 27.04.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office
to tag the same at appropriate place.
A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the
petitioner.
5. Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for bail,
submits that a huge amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid in cash to the
petitioner. Besides, as per custody certificate, there are four other cases of
similar nature registered against the petitioner and two cases are under the
Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, keeping in view antecedents of the
petitioner, he does not deserve concession of regular bail at this stage.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material available on record.
7. Allegations against the petitioner are with regard to receiving an
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on the pretext of sending complainant's nephew
abroad. However, whether said amount was actually received by the
petitioner and the extent of his involvement in the alleged occurrence would
be a matter to be determined during trial on the basis of evidence to be led
by the parties.
It is also noticeable that petitioner is inside the jail for about a
period of more than 10 months. The offences alleged are triable by the Court
learned Magistrate, and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time.
Though other cases are stated to be pending against the petitioner, same by
itself cannot be made sole ground to deny bail at this stage.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, without
commenting upon merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view
that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful
purpose. Accordingly, petitioner deserves to be extended concession of
regular bail.
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.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 28, 2026
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
