CRM-M/25120/2026 of PRITHVI RAJ Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 14 July 2026

1. This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C) in case FIR No. 404 dated 13.10.2025 under Sections 318(4), 316(2) (Sections 420 and 406 IPC earlier), Sections 336(3) BNS (Section 469 IPC earlier) added later registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sant Lal, in connivance with the petitioner, obtained an amount of ₹2,60,000/- from the complainant on the false pretext of securing a government job for him. It is alleged that Sant Lal also provided the complainant with a forged appointment letter to lend credibility to the false promise. It is further alleged that the petitioner received an amount of ₹20,000/- as commission from the said transaction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence. He further submits that no specific allegation of inducement has been attributed to the petitioner. It is contended that no recovery of any incriminating article, RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh including the alleged forged appointment letter, has been effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2025 and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, and he deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. He submits that the petitioner is involved in four other criminal cases arising out of similar allegations and involving the same co-accused. Learned State counsel has also filed the reply as well as the custody certificate in Court today, which are taken on record. He further submits that, as per the custody certificate, the petitioner has remained in custody for the last 06 months and 24 days. Although the petitioner is involved in four other criminal cases, he has already been released on bail in those cases.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. After hearing the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, that the petitioner is in custody for the last 04 months and 24 days and that the trial is yet to commence and is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the considered view that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, without expressing any RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

8. 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/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that if, while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 14.07.2026

(H.S.GREWAL) renu

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh