Parveen Garg v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 114+262 Date of Decision:- 27.05.2025 PARVEEN GARG ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Mr. Virat Amarnath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG Haryana.

***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) CRM-22181-2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Annexure P-7 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CRM-M-11933-2025 The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 15.02.2023 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC;

(201 and 120-B IPC;

132 GST Act) Sadar Sonipat, District Sonipat, Haryana no. 2), Mo 2.

It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He

-2has placed on record the copy of the order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned trial Court to say that charge under GST has not been framed against the petitioner. He contends that even otherwise the petitioner has not participated in the crime in any manner nor committed any cheating or forgery nor is he the beneficiary of any such transaction. He submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents but has been nominated on the disclosure statement of co-accused Sunny Goel, who has already been granted the concession of bail. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2024 and after the completion of investigation, challan has been presented in Court and the conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Thus, prays for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Sanjiv and while referring to the status report filed by the State has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner along with co-accused have conspired and prepared false documents and committed forgery. He submits that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail and prays for dismissal of the petition.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the bank account was opened by co-accused Mustkin in which some amounts pertaining to the firm M/s SBJ Enterprise created by co-accused Sunny Goel were deposited. The withdrawal forms signed by co-accused Mustkin were alleged to be used by co-accused Sunny Goel and the petitioner is not the

-3beneficiary of any such transaction. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and was nominated on the disclosure statement of co-accused Sunny Goel and was arrested in this case on 13.11.2024 and amount of ₹5,000/- was recovered from him. After the completion of investigation, challan has been presented in Court, wherein the prosecution has cited 71 witnesses, however, only 02 have been examined till date. It is not disputed that co-accused Sunny Goel and Mustkin have been granted the concession of bail. The criminal liability, if any, of the petitioner, could only be determined after the conclusion of trial by the Court of Magistrate, which may take sufficient long time. In the circumstances, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any longer. 6.

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Judge on Duty/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; undertaking to regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of prosecution in any manner. 7.

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 27.05.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No