← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8549/2026allowed

Yashpal v. State Of Haryana

2026-04-30Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.220 Date of Decision: 30.04.2026 YASHPAL

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Didar Singh, Advocate and Mr. Satyam Shrivastav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 458 dated 06.07.2025, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sector 10, Gurugram.

2.

The allegations levelled in the present case are that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with co-accused Vatan Arora and others, hatched a plan to defraud the complainant on the pretext of facilitating the sale of a flat. It is alleged that the petitioner procured the details of the actual owner of the said flat and contacted him under the pretext of arranging a prospective buyer, and thereafter manipulated email communications with the society office to create an impression of authenticity so that the flat could be shown to the complainant. In this manner, the petitioner along with other

co-accused allegedly induced the complainant to part with a substantial sum of Rs. 25 lakhs on the strength of representations regarding ownership of a specific flat, which were later found to be incorrect. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody for the last nine months and 11 days. It is further submitted that on the last date i.e. 20.03.2026, this Court had directed the trial Court to examine the Investigating Officer and the complainant, as none of the witnesses had been examined till that date. In compliance with the said order, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and PW-3, who is the material witness i.e. the complainant, has not uttered even a single word against the accused-petitioner Yashpal in his examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that there is nothing against the accused-petitioner and that even in his complaint Ex. PW3/A, there is no mention of petitioner Yashpal and that he has never met the petitioner. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted, on the basis of the status report, that the petitioner along with co-accused induced the complainant and his wife to transfer an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs to the account of co-accused Vatan Arora. It is further contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. 5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that as per the testimony of PW-3 Pankaj Arora, who is the complainant and a material witness, no allegation whatsoever has been attributed to the present petitioner. He has not uttered even a single word against the petitioner in his examination-in-chief, and in his crossexamination, he has categorically stated that nothing has been mentioned by

him in his complaint against the petitioner and that he has never met Yashpal. From the evidence that has come on record, it prima facie transpires that the petitioner has played no role in inducing the complainant to part with the alleged amount.

6.

Considering also the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last nine months and 11 days and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

7.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

However, it is clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 9.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 30.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No