Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/40051/2026 of SURENDER Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 27 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.40051 of 2026 Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Surender …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present :- Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.40051 of 2026
Date of decision: 27.07.2026
Surender
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present :-
Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
*****
H.S.GREWAL, J. (Oral)
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. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.619 dated 04.09.2019 registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC {now 316, 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS 2023}, at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along-with his co-accused, allured students on false promise of securing jobs in the Indian Army and had taken heavy amount from several students. It is stated that the role of the petitioner is that he had collected the money and handed over the same to co-accused Manzoor Ahmad Ghani.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the petitioner had merely collected the money from the students and handed over the same to the co-accused and that no part of the alleged amount was credited to or received in the petitioner's bank account. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 02 months and 20 days. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 02 months and 20 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the for the last 01 year, 02 months and 20 days and that the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.
7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
8. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.
(H.S.GREWAL) 27.07.2026
JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No