Navreet Singh Alias Navneet Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 10.12.2025 Navreet Singh @ Navneet Singh ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. G.S.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuia, DAG, Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No.352 dated 10.12.2023 under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 24 of Emigration Act, 1983 added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Ratia District Fatehabad.

An amount of Rs.19 lakhs was got deposited in the bank account of petitioner's wife, therefore, while hearing the petition on 07.08.2025, following order was recorded:

"Present:

Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, DAG, Haryana.

-.- 1.

It has already been recorded in the order dated 29.07.2025 that, as per the prosecution's case, an amount of Rs.19 lakhs was deposited into the account of the petitioner, and thereafter, the said amount was transferred by the petitioner to the bank account of his wife, namely

Baljit Kaur (wrongly mentioned as Manjit Kaur in the previous order dated 29.07.2025). The cash amount was then withdrawn by the petitioner. Now, his wife is all alone, there is no one else in the family to repay the amount. In view of this, to check the bona fide of the petitioner and only for the purpose to give him one chance, to make arrangements for depositing of amount of Rs.19 lakhs, petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail, uptil the next date of hearing, subject to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

3.

List on 08.09.2025.

4.

To be shown in the urgent list."

3.

On the next date of hearing i..e 08.09.2025, counsel for the petitioner expressed his difficulty as to, why amount could not be deposited, therefore, by recording the reasons for the same, following order was passed: "Present:

Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

**** 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2025, to enable him to pay an amount of ₹19.00 lakhs to the complainant/victim, however, since the petitioner is already confined in another case, i.e., FIR No.27 dated 26.09.2022, registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Ratia, District Fatehabad, he could not be released from jail. Consequently, the object of making payment to the complainant/victim could not be achieved. Learned counsel therefore prays that the period of interim bail be extended for a

further period of six weeks, during which time he shall also persuade the petitioner to settle the dispute in the aforesaid other case, i.e., FIR No.27 dated 26.09.2022 (supra). List again on 28.10.2025.

Meanwhile, interim order of bail dated 07.08.2025, shall continue till the next date of hearing."

4.

Mr. G.S.Verma, Advocate submits that, in fact, FIR number is wrongly recorded in the previous order dated 08.09.2025 instead of FIR No.27 dated 26.09.2022 it has to be FIR No.272 dated 26.09.2023. Further submits that since petitioner could not come out of jail in the criminal case mentioned hereinabove, as of now, he be granted permission to withdraw the instant petition for grant of regular bail with liberty to file afresh one after getting bail and coming out of the jail in the aforementioned case. 5.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought and recorded hereinabove.

10.12.2025 (SANJAY VASHISTH) sonia JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO