Punjab and Haryana High Court

CRM-M/42591/2026 of SAHIL Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 3 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 CRM-M-42591-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 Sahil …Petitioner V/s State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Vasundhara

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 Sahil

…Petitioner

V/s State of Haryana

…Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.635, dated 24.07.2025 registered at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’).

2. On the complaint of one Sunil Kumar, the FIR in question was registered. Sunil Kumar had obtained a gold loan from Manipuram Gold Loan and had pledged his gold jewellery weighing 19 tolas. Accordingly, a loan of Rs.8,92,454/- was disbursed to him. Upon repayment of the loan, when the jewellery was handed back to the complainant, he found the weight of the kada (bangle) to be slightly more than it actually was. Accordingly, he got it tested from a jeweller and found that the Kada (bangle) was made of brass. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that one Rajeshwar Mahboob Yalgar, Branch Manager of the Manipuram Gold Loan along with another employee Raju had approached the jeweller Deepak Bhola and had asked him to prepare a replica of the said Kada. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the disclosure statement of Rajeshwar Mahboob Yalgar and he was accordingly arrested on 20.05.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that initially only the branch manager of Manipuram Gold Loan and one Raju were apprehended and they are still in custody being the main accused and the petitioner was arrested only on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by them. He submits that though the petitioner is an employee of Manipuram Gold Loan, he has absolutely no role to play in the matter. He submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean; he is in custody for the last more than 3 months, he having been arrested on 20.05.2026; no recovery has to be made from him; investigation stands completed; final report has been submitted; however, charges are yet to be framed. He submits that under the circumstances, trial will take a sufficiently long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may try to influence and threaten the witnesses and may also abscond.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. As to whether the petitioner was actually involved in the offence or not shall be determined when the trial concludes. The petitioner was named on the basis of a disclosure statement made by the main accused Rajeshwar Mahboob Yalgar and Raju. No recovery is to be made from him. His antecedents are clean. He is in custody for the last 3 months and 12 days. Investigation stands completed. Final report has been submitted though charges are yet to be framed. It is, therefore, clear that trial will take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

7. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)

JUDGE September 03, 2026 vcgarg

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead