Prince @ Adalkha v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-8219-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.237 CRM-M-8219-2026 Decided on : 20.04.2026 Prince @ Adalkha ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM :




  

 *** Present :

Mr. Kunal Choksi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

***   

  , J (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.119 dated 04.12.2024 registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 238(c), 319, 61 of BNS and Section 66-D of IT Act added later on), at Police Station Cyber Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

2.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused duped the complainant for a sum of Rs.83,800/-. Hence, the present FIR.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with

CRM-M-8219-2026 2 the said offence. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and initially the FIR was registered against unknown persons. It has also been contended that during investigation, co-accused Rajesh Kumar was arrested and the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the said co-accused Rajesh Kumar. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the coaccused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further submitted that the petitioner has been nominated in the present case by the prosecution because he is co-accused of Rajesh Kumar in FIR No.94 of 2025.

Learned counsel submits that mobile number from which call had made to the complainant is not registered in the name of the petitioner. Further, co-accused Ravi Kumar Tiwari, in whose account Rs.36,000/- was transferred and Rahul Rajput in whose account Rs.20,000/- was transferred and Raj Kumar have already been granted the concession of bail by the learned trial Court as well as by this Court. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2025. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed. He further submitted that out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined till date and as such, the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars.

Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4.

 

CRM-M-8219-2026 3 5.

Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of the petition and has filed the custody certificate. The same is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. 6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 08 months; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges framed; out of 13 witnesses, only 01 has been examined till date; co-accused have already been granted the concession of bail; the complicity of the petitioner is a matter of trial; which is proceeding at snail's pace, and will take a long time to conclude. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7.

Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule" and "jail is an exception". 8.

As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is

CRM-M-8219-2026 4 held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

9.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 10.

All miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

      







 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No