Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/40655/2026 of SUNNY Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 13 August 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 CRM-M-40655-2026 Date of decision: 13.08.2026 SUNNY …... Petitioner V/s STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar S.
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 225 CRM-M-40655-2026
Date of decision: 13.08.2026 SUNNY …... Petitioner V/s STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. ***** 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.29 dated 29.01.2025 under Sections 319, 336, 340, 61(2) of BNS (Sections 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS added later on) registered at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab.
2. As per the allegations against the accused, the petitioner along with his co-accused appeared before the Court and furnished forged and fabricated surety bonds for an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- by falsely claiming to be Numberdars for the release of a vehicle on superdari and on an inquiry by the Court, the valuation report was found to be forged and fabricated. The identity proof of the petitioner was however not found to be forged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence whatsoever is made out. As the petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2025 but none of the 07 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, the Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and he is entitled to the concession KUSUM
::2:: of bail, moreso when the case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate and a co-accused namely Dharampal Mehta has been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 24.02.2026.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner do not entitle him to the concession as prayed for. He, however, concedes that the petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2025 but none of the 07 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, that the case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate and that a co-accused namely Dharampal Mehta has been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 24.02.2026.
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. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2025 but none of the 07 prosecution witnesses has 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 KUSUM
::3:: 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 namely Dharampal Mehta has been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 24.02.2026..
8. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Sunny, S/o Darshal Lal, is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
9. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the present case.
10. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.
11. The present petition stands disposed of.
12. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. August 13, 2026
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) Kusum JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUSUM