CRM-M/33546/2026 of PARDEEP DALAL @ PARDEEP 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.68 dated 20.03.2026 under Sections 318(4), 61 of BNS (420 and 120-B of IPC) registered at Police Station City Jhajjar.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner received an amount of ₹1.40 crore from the complainant on the assurance that he would secure the appointment of the complainant's daughter, Deepika, as a Member of the HPSC within one week to ten days. In acknowledgment of the receipt of the said amount, the petitioner allegedly executed a receipt bearing the signatures of all the persons present at the time of the transaction. However, neither was the complainant's daughter appointed as a Member of the HPSC nor was the amount returned to the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh incident pertains to the year 2020, whereas the present FIR came to be registered after an unexplained delay of nearly six years. It is further argued that the alleged transaction was effected entirely in cash and not through any recognised banking channel. It is further submitted that no amount is alleged to have been transferred by the complainant to the petitioner through any bank account or cheque. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.05.2026 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 AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the complainant, has filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. They vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of regular bail, contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. Learned State counsel has also produced the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He submits that, as per the cus- tody certificate, the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last 02 months and 10 days and is not involved in any otter case.

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

Chandigarh

7. After hearing the rival contentions of the 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 02 months and 10 days; he is not involved in any other case; trial of the case is yet to commence and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner 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