[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Thakur vs State Of Punjab on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-54952-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54952-2025
Sukhdev Thakur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 18.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not
5
reasons thereof applicable
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. Arshvir Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
MANISHA BATRA, J :-
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 253 dated
01.09.2023 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC, Sections 4,
5, 12, 18 and 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning
of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Acts, 2019 at Police Station Zirakpur,
District SAS Nagar.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered by the complainants
1 of 5
Rajiv Kumar, Asha Ram and Manish Gogna alleging that they were working
in a company named as IDM Infotech Ltd.. Accused Vipin, who was known
to the complainants, hadapproached complainant Rajiv Kumar in January
2020 with an investment proposal. Initially, the complainant declined the said
proposal; however, on account of repeated assurances regarding high returns
and representations made by the accused persons, he agreed to invest. It is
alleged that an amount of Rs. 70,000/- was deposited by complainant Rajiv
Kumar on the asking of accused Vipin Kumar. Thereafter, the said investment
plan was discussed with other complainants, namely Asha Ram and Manish
Gogna, who were also induced to invest in the said scheme. It is further
alleged that the present petitioner along with other accused persons namely
Abhishek Sharma and Sunil Siyal held meetings with the complainants at
Zirakpur and other places, where they explained the investment scheme and
assured lucrative returns. For some time, returns were paid; however,
subsequently the payments were stopped. It is further alleged that the accused
persons conducted meetings and seminars to gain the confidence of the
complainants and other investors. Later on, the company was stated to have
been renamed/merged, after which the complainants did not receive any
returns. The complainant Manish Gogna was expelled from the company in
February, 2023. By alleging that his relatives and himself had invested an
amount of Rs. 40 lakhs in the company on being allured by the accused, the
complainant prayed for taking action.
3. After registration of FIR, Investigation proceedings were
2 of 5
initiated. Accused Sham Sharma, Ashwani Kumar and Sunil Kumar were
arrested and suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the
crime. During the course of investigation, on 21.10.2023, complainant Manish
Gogna appeared before the Investigating Agency and produced some
documents, WhatsApp chats along with a pen-drive containing audio and
video recordings of the accused persons. The petitioner was arrested on
21.11.2023. Other co-accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigation
now stands concluded.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been
falsely implicated in this case. He has been in custody since long. He is not
beneficiary of any transaction. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate.
Trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would
not serve any useful purpose. Co-accused has been extended benefit of bail.
On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. Therefore, it is
argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view
the gravity of the allegations and the part attributed to the petitioner, he does
not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is urged that the
petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length.
7. The petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 21.11.2023 i.e. for a period of
3 of 5
02 years, 03 months and 29 days. Though the allegations prima facie make
out a case for commission of subject offences against him, however, he has
been in custody for a considerable period of time. Trial is not likely to be
concluded since many prosecution witnesses still remain to be examined. As
such, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody
anymore. The well settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration
should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The object of jail is to
secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or
punitive. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that
law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the
requirements of the criminal justice system. Taking into consideration the
nature of the subject offences, the period spent by the petitioner in custody
and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the
same is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to
his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned and further
subject to condition that he shall not leave the country during the pendency of
the trial, without permission of the learned trial Magistrate and he shall
disclose his present as well as permanent address before the learned trial Court
at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card,
passport and PAN Card, if any and details of his mobile phone number to the
learned trial Court and in case, any change in his address or mobile phone
4 of 5
number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial
Court during trial of the case.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the outcome of the trial.
9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending
application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
[MANISHA BATRA]
JUDGE
23rd March, 2026
Parveen Sharma
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No
2. Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
