High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/5199/2026allowed

Kanwardalip Singh Baweja v. State Of Punjab

2026-05-11Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel7 pages

CRM-M No.5199 of 2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.5199 of 2026 Date of decision : 11.5.2026 Date of uploading : 11.5.2026 Kanwardalip Singh Baweja .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab Mr. Deepanshu Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.170 dated 10.9.2022 under Sections 420, 120-B and 201 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Ranjit Avenue, District Amritsar.

The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the and his family members had availed a loan of ₹59,25,000/- against kothi no.2315, CBlock, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar and become defaulters in the loan account. Despite pendency of appeal before DRT, Chandigarh regarding that matter, the petitioner along with his family members sold the above said property to the complainant without disclosing the status of the loan

CRM-M No.5199 of 2026 -2and pending appeal and thereby committed fraud with the complainant. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 5.8.2024. Learned counsel has further urged that the FIR in question emanates from a property/money related dispute. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 01 year qua the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further urge that the challan, upon culmination of investigation, stands filed and conclusion thereof will take time. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of Gagandeep Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, North, Amritsar in Court today. The same be kept on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 9.5.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 4.1 Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has filed his vakalatnama, which is kept on record. He vehemently opposes the grant of regular bail on the ground that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned counsel has urged that the petitioner has fraudulently usurped a huge amount and thus, clearly cheated the FIR-complainant. On this account, dismissal of the bail petition is entreated for.

CRM-M No.5199 of 2026 -35. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

!" #$ %&% '$ ( )*

# # $

' ()

' * + ,%

% )

CRM-M No.5199 of 2026 -4-

% '

0 %

% 1

# # +$( ,- !" +- # "

" &

% %

# !

#./ 0 +*1*- # )1

# %

)

CRM-M No.5199 of 2026 -5-

1 #

1 6.3 The petitioner was arrested on 5.8.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 4.10.2024 and subsequently filed. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which only 01 has been partly examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.4 As per custody certificate dated 9.5.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 2 months and 18 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of

CRM-M No.5199 of 2026 -6regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

CRM-M No.5199 of 2026 -78. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

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

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 11.5.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No