[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankush Garg vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 2026
CRM-M-13963-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
251
CRM-M-13963-2026
Date of decision : 18.03.2026
Date of uploading : 18.03.2026
ANKUSH GARG .............Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.362 dated 19.09.2024 under
Sections 238(a), 316(2), 318(4) of BNS (Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2),
339, 61(2) of BNS added later on) registered at Police Station Taraori,
Karnal.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
"The copy of the writing is as follows: Sender: Inspector, Food Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Taraori. To, The Worthy
Manager Officer, Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.
Memo No: 246 Date: 13/09/2024. Subject: Application for registering a
case and necessary legal action against: Ankush Garg, son of Shri Brij
Mohan Garg, resident of Ward No. 0-4, Taraori, District Karnal, owner of
M/s V.V. Industries, Pakhana/Saukra Road, Taraori (Mob: 98961-11101).
Vishal Garg, son of Shri Brij Mohan Garg, resident of Ward No. 0-4,
Taraori, District Karnal. Jalo Rishidev, son of Shri Narayan Rishidev,
Guarantor, Karnal, Proprietor/Partner of M/s Shri Shyam Trading
Company, Shop No. 0-448, New Grain Market, Taraori, District Karnal.
Bikram Kumar, son of Shri Vijay Ray, Proprietor of M/s Vishnu Traders,
Shop No. 0-441, New Grain Market, Taraori, District Karnal. Sir, the
applicant makes the following request: That the applicant, Rajiv Kumar, is
1 of 6
employed as an Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department, Karnal,
and is currently posted as an Inspector in Taraori, District Karnal. That
during the paddy season of the year 2023-24, a total of 4196 Metric
Tonnes (MT) of paddy was given to M/s V.V. Industries, Taraori for
milling by the Food and Supplies Department, Karnal. An agreement was
executed in this regard between the Food and Supplies Department,
Karnal, and the second party, M/s V.V. Industries, Taraori. That Accused
No. 1 is the proprietor of M/s V.V. Industries, Taraori; Accused No. 2 is
the brother of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 3 and 4 are involved as
guarantors. Out of the aforementioned paddy, a total of 2793.23 Metric
Tonnes of rice was to be returned to the Government after milling at a rate
of 67%. However, the said firm failed to mill the paddy and deliver the
rice on time. Despite repeated written notices given to M/s V.V. Industries,
Taraori, they did not deliver the Custom Milled Rice (CMR) to the Food
Corporation of India (FCI) as per the delivery ratio. On 13.09.2024, a
physical inspection of M/s V.V. Industries, Taraori was conducted by the
Food and Supplies Department, Karnal. During the inspection, it was
found that there was neither paddy nor rice present in the mill. To date,
the aforementioned accused persons have supplied only 345 Metric
Tonnes of rice to the Food Corporation of India. In this manner, a total
balance of 2448.23 Metric Tonnes of rice remains outstanding with M/s
V.V. Industries, Taraori. Based on the physical inspection report The
owner of M/s V.V. Industries Tarawadi, Ankush Garg, A.F.S.O. Tarawadi
Rajiv Langyan, Rajiv Kumar (Inspector), and Sandeep (Sub-Inspector)
affixed their respective signatures. When the Inspector repeatedly asked
the owner of the aforementioned firm about the government rice and
paddy-specifically where the 2448.23 Metric Tonnes of rice (3654 MT
Paddy) was located-the aforementioned accused persons could not
provide any answer. In this manner, the owner of V.V. Industries, in
collusion with other accused persons, misappropriated/embezzled the
paddy and rice belonging to the Food and Supplies Department, Karnal.
By doing so, they caused a total loss of ₹9,94,80,164/- (Nine Crores,
Ninety- Four Lakhs, Eighty Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Four
Rupees) to the Food and Supplies Department, Karnal. Therefore, it is
requested of your honor that legal action be taken against the owner of
M/s V.V. Industries Tarawadi and other guarantors, and the total 2448.23
Metric Tonnes of rice belonging to the department be recovered. With
thanks. Dated: 13.09.24 SD Sd/- Rajiv xxx xxx."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 09.08.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted
that the FIR in question emanates from a contractual obligation, for which
the FIR-complainant ought to have invoked civil remedy(s), however, it is
only under the pressure of the complainant that the police has registered
the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial
emanating therefrom is a magisterial one and is in progress. Learned
counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is aged about 43 years.
Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has clean
2 of 6
antecedents. 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
17.03.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case. Before delving into the matter in hand, 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
3 of 6
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."
5.1. 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."
5.2. 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
4 of 6
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 09.08.2025 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 09.10.2025.
Total 16 prosecution witnesses have been cited but only 2 has been partly
examined and 2 has been given up till date. It is thus indubitable that
culmination of trial will take its own time. 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.
6.1 As per custody certificate dated 17.03.2026 filed by learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 7 months and 9 days and is not shown to be involved in any other case.
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
5 of 6
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.
(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.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
18.03.2026
ja
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
