Preet Inder Arora v. State Of Haryana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 27.05.2025 PREET INDER ARORA ....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :
Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.
!" ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.
Dated Sections Police Station 22.10.2024 61, 241, 16(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 Bharatiya Nyaya Cyber Crime, Police District Panchkula Sanhita, 2023 no. 2), Mo 2.
It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that the petitioner happens to be the Manager of the Bank, having no role in transaction. He submits that the petitioner was arrested on
-206.11.2024 on the allegation of being the conspirator in the entire transaction in helping the co-accused to encash the money which they had earned by way of fraud. He contends that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of co- accused Mukesh Singla to have facilitated the encashment of cheques and transfer of the amount in the account of co-accused Suman Rani. He further contends that the aforesaid Mukesh Singla and Suman Rani have already been granted the concession of bail by learned #
$ %$!
$$, Panchkula and learned Additional Sessions Jude, Panchkula (respectively). He submits that none of the witnesses cited by the prosecution have yet been examined, and the conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Thus, prays for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner.
3.
Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, while referring to the reply filed by the State has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has actively participated in the crime in facilitating the encashment of the cheques while being working as Bank Manager, as such, he does not deserve the concession of bail and prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.
After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that the petitioner being working as Bank Manager was originally named in the FIR, but has been nominated on the disclosure statement of co-accused Mukesh Singla. Consequently, the petitioner was arrested on 06.11.2024. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he
-3facilitated encashment of the cheques for transfer of the amount in the name of co-accused Suman Rani after the banking hours. It is not disputed that the beneficiary of the cheques was co-accused Suman Rani. The petitioner is alleged to have taken some commission for this purpose. Challan has already been presented in the Court triable by the Court of Magistrate, wherein the prosecution has cited 13 witnesses and none has been examined till date. The criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner, could only be determined after the conclusion of trial, which may take sufficient long time. In the circumstances, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer.
6.
Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judge on Duty/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner. 7.
Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.
8.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 27.05.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?
Yes/No