[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohsin Hussain vs State Of Haryana on 22 May, 2026
CRM-M-17786-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr.No.220
CRM-M-17786-2026
Decided on : 22.05.2026
Mohsin Hussain
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
***
Present : Mr. Anshul Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
***
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in case FIR No.101, dated 13.02.2019, registered under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, at Police Station
Gharaunda, District Karnal.
2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner
allured many people to invest their amount in his company and get doubled
the amount thereby cheated them for the sum of rupees two to three crores.
Hence, the present FIR.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-17786-2026 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further
contends that the allegations levelled against him are false and he has no
concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that earlier, the
petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated
05.05.2020 (Annexure P-2), however, on 13.04.2023, he did not appear
before the trial Court, therefore, his bail was cancelled and his non-bailable
warrants of arrest were issued and finally, he was declared proclaimed
offender vide order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel
contends that vide order dated 21.11.2025, passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in CRM-M-65621-2025, the petitioner surrendered before the
learned trial Court on 19.12.2025 and since then he is in custody. The
investigation in this case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have
been framed and out of 236 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined
till date. He further submits that trial will take a long time to conclude and
no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars.
Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the status report as well as
custody certificate which are taken on record. He has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the
petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner is
also involved in multiple other cases of similar nature meaning thereby he is
a habitual offender.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after
perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody
2026.05.22 19:35 since 19.12.2025; the investigation in this case is complete; challan stands
authenticity of this order/judgment
presented; charges have been framed; out of 236 prosecution witnesses, none
has been examined till date and the fact that trial may take a long time to
conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in
further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial
being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the
bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement
of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution
of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an
exception".
7. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner
is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs.
State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts
and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail
application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely
on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the
role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and
other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court etc."
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-17786-2026 4
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty
Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
22.05.2026 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL )
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
