Navdeep Kumar v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.221 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 NAVDEEP KUMAR

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Hans, AAG, Punjab.

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

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 51 dated 05.09.2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC (Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS), registered at Police Station Division No.1, District Pathankot. 2.

Brief facts of case are that in the present FIR, the petitioner while working as Branch Manager with IndusInd Bank, is alleged to have misappropriated the amount collected from customers towards loan installments by diverting the same into his personal account as well as the account of his wife and further issued forged receipts in order to conceal the said transactions.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. It is further contended that there is no tangible evidence available on record to substantiate the

allegations inasmuch as the entire case is based upon documentary evidence, which already stands collected by the investigating agency. It is also argued that there is unexplained delay in registration of the FIR and even otherwise, no specific date or transaction has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2025. It is submitted that the investigation stands concluded. The challan has been presented on 30.11.2025 and charges have been framed on 02.01.2026. It is further submitted that out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time. It is also contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the present petition by contending that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature involving financial fraud. It is submitted that during investigation, statements of complainants and bank records reveal diversion of EMIs into the personal account of the petitioner and forged receipts/NOCs have also been recovered. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case/FIR of similar nature.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record of the case. The petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2025 and is in custody since then. Investigation in the present case stands completed. Challan has already been presented and charges stand framed. It is not disputed that none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its

own time. As per custody certificate placed on record, the petitioner has undergone incarceration for more than 6 months. Though the petitioner is stated to be involved in one more case/FIR, however, the said factum, in itself, cannot be a ground to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner when a case is otherwise made out for grant of bail qua the FIR in question. It is pertinent to note that, on similar facts, the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of regular bail in FIR No. 63 dated 01.10.2024 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-9357-2026, titled Navdeep Kumar vs. State of Punjab, decided on 12.03.2026. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition.

6.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. 7.

However, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 29.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No