Chintu Singh v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-11435-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.232 CRM-M-11435-2026 Decided on : 18.04.2026 Chintu Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL *** Present :

Ms. Mansi Majoka, Advocate for Mr. R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Senior DAG, Haryana. *** 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.284 dated 27.08.2025, registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Chandhut, District Palwal.

2.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner alongwith co-accused cheated the complainant by executing a forged sale deed with the complainant by impersonation. Hence, the present FIR. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further contends that the allegations levelled against him are false and he has no

CRM-M-11435-2026 2 concern with the said offence. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is neither the beneficiary of the alleged forged sale deed nor owner of the property. He submits that the entire evidence in the present case is documentary in nature. It has been contended that the case is purely of civil nature which has been given criminal colour. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 30.10.2025 and he has clean antecedents. The investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have been framed. Learned counsel further submits that out of 30 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. He further submits that 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.

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate as well as the status report, which are 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. However, he has not controverted the fact that the petitioner is the first time offender as he is not involved in any other case.

11.

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 more than 05 months and 18 days; the investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented; charges have been framed; out of 30 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date 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 further detention without the

CRM-M-11435-2026 3 prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 12.

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".

14.

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. 18.04.2026 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ) mamta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No