Sunil Verma v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.03.2026 SUNIL VERMA ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Lokesh Vohra, Advocate for the complainant .....

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, 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.282 dated 03.08.2024 registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 506 IPC at Police Station Hisar Civil Lines, District Hisar. 2.

Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that the petitioner in connivance with the other co-accused allured the complainant on the pretext of providing visa for the United Kingdom as well as Poland, and duped him for a sum of ₹ 61,00,000/-. Hence the present FIR. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the offence. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since

-219.09.2025 and the offence in question is triable by magistrate only. He further submits that the co-accused Deepak Bhojan, who is the main accused, and has received ₹55 Lakhs in his account, has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2025. He further submits that the complainant has settled the matter for ₹45 Lakhs in full and final with co-accused Deepak Bhojan and also received the said amount from him and the said fact is also mentioned in the bail order of co-accused (Annexure P-2). He further submits that even if the prosecution version is taken to be true, then also only allegation against the petitioner is that he has received ₹2.80 lakhs in his account, which has been returned to the complainant.

He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. He further submits that investigation in the present case is complete, chalan has been filed, but charges are yet to be framed. As such, the conclusion of trial will take a considerable long time. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4.

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner and also filed reply, which are taken on record. She has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. However, she could not controvert the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case.

5.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner has actively participated in the crime and does not deserve any concession from this Court. Hence, he prays that the present petition be dismissed. 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

-3for the last more than 6 months; investigation is complete; challan stands presented, charges are yet to be framed; and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the 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 her 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.

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. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 24.03.2026 JUDGE Puneet....

i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No