[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Karandeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 January, 2026

                                                                               1

CRM-
CRM-M-561-
      561-2026




209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                CRM-
                                CRM-M-561-
                                      561-2026

Karandeep Singh
                                                                    ....Petitioner
                                      Versus
State of Haryana
                                                                  ...Respondent

Date of decision: January 16,
                          16, 2026
Date of Uploading: January 16,
                            16, 2026

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:     Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.

                                       *****

SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS BNSS'), for grant of regular bail to

the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.108 No dated 27.06.2025, registered for the

offences ences punishable under Sections Section 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(forr short 'IPC'), 'IPC') at Police Station Panjokhra Sahib, District Ambala.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the

complainant, namely, Baljinder Singh, son of Karamjit Singh, alleged that the

accused, Amanpreet Kaur, is his neighbour and used to visit his house

frequently. Amanpreet Kaur represented to the complainant that her relative,

Karandeep Singh (petitioner herein), was involved in sending persons abroad.

1 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-561- 561-2026

She assured the complainant that if he was interested, she could arrange for him

to be sent abroad and informed him that a sum of ₹8 lakhs would be required

for sending him to Canada. Relying upon these representations, the

complainant paid ₹4 lakhs to accused Amanpreet Kaur and Karandeep Singh

(petitioner herein). Both accused assured him that he would be sent abroad

within two months. Thereafter, the complainant paid further amounts to the

accused persons. However, despite receiving the money, the accused neither

sent the complainant abroad nor returned the amount paid by him. The accused

persons have, thus, cheated the complainant. The complainant further came to

know that the accused have similarly cheated several other persons on the false

pretext of sending them abroad.

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

in custody since 03.07.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel

has further argued that actually the main case into the FIR in question is against

one Amanpreet Kaur and no challan (final report) has been put up against her.

Learned counsel has further iterated that, in any case, investigation qua FIR in

question is complete and culmination of the trial will take long. 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 15.01.2026, in the Court today, which is

taken on record.

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

available records of the case.

2 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-561- 561-2026

Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to

refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand:

5.1 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."

3 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-561- 561-2026

5.2. 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."

5.3 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 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."

6. The petitioner was arrested on 03.07.2025 whereinafter

investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 26.09.2025.

Total 11 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined

till date. It is, thus, indubitable that conclusion of the trial will take long time.

The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall

essentially 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

4 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-561- 561-2026

indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice

or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 15.01.2026 filed by learned State

counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 05

months and 11 days. Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is

stated to be involved in other FIR(s). 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, Haryan a, 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.

5 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-561- 561-2026

(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 cellphone 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.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed

hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant

shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous

application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE January 16, 16, 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No