Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/50043/2026 of RAJESH KUMAR @ PRINCE Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 10 September 2026
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (235) CRM-M-50043-2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 RAJESH KUMAR @ PRINCE …... Petitioner V/s STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Diya
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(235) CRM-M-50043-2026
Date of decision: 10.09.2026 RAJESH KUMAR @ PRINCE …... Petitioner V/s STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Vishal Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI,
J. (Oral)
The prayer in this petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of the regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.334 dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC and Sections 10, 24 of Immigration Act registered at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, District Kurukshetra.
2. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner introduced the complainant with a co-accused, namely Sukhwinder Singh, in order to send the complainant’s son, namely Abhay, abroad.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the primary accused is one Sukhwinder Singh, who has not been arrested till date. As the petitioner is in custody since 24.09.2025 but only 02 of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to KUSUM
::2:: the concession of bail, particularly when the case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner and his co-accused cheated the complainant of an amount of Rs.8,95,000/- with a promise that they would send the complainant’s son abroad. However, the son of the complainant was not sent abroad and neither was the money refunded to the complainant. Therefore, the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner does not entitle him to the concession as prayed for. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 24.09.2025, that only 02 of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and that the case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. This Court in the case titled as Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab bearing CRM-M24033- 2021(O&M) Decided on 31.08.2022 has held as under:- “Therefore, broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts) , in economic offences involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant.”
7. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated during the course of the Trial. KUSUM
::3:: Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 24.09.2025, that only 02 of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. The present case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate and no serious apprehension has been expressed by the State that the petitioner would abscond from justice, tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses if granted the concession of bail. Therefore, in this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required, moreso, when a co-accused has been granted the similar concession of bail.
8. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Rajesh Kumar is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
9. The present petition stands disposed of.
10. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. 10.09.2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) kusum JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUSUM