Prem Narain Gupta v. State Of Haryana

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 09.04.2026 Prem Narain Gupta . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate, Mr. Anant Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Varinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Haryana assisted by PSI Surender.

Mr. Himmat S. Deol, Advocate and Ms. Sagarika, Advocate, for the complainant.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Prem Narain Gupta 350 01.10.2025 108, 3 (5) of BNS, 2023 Model Town Rewari (corresponding Sections 306 & 34 of IPC) 2.

First and foremost argument addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged suicide note, which forms the backbone of the prosecution case, is highly doubtful, as the same has been recovered after a period of 12 days from the date of the alleged suicide and is also undated. It is further submitted that even though the FSL report has been received and

- 2 - the contents of the suicide note are stated to be in the handwriting of the deceased - Vipin Goel, yet except mentioning the name of the petitioner, there are no specific allegations indicating any direct inducement or abetment on his part, compelling the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, it is argued that in the absence of any direct act of abetment, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per contents of the suicide note, an amount of approximately Rs.11.00 crores was arranged by the deceased during his lifetime for facilitating loans to various persons. However, on account of non-payment of the said loan amounts, the deceased felt humiliated and was under immense pressure, which allegedly led him to commit suicide. It is contended that without establishing the advancement of such loans through cogent evidence, the allegations cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the suicide note. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.01.2026 and thereafter joined the investigation. Upon completion of investigation, challan has already been presented on 13.03.2026 and charges have also been framed on 07.04.2026. However, the process of recording of prosecution evidence is yet to commence. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the prayer for bail, submits that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence and, therefore, till the complainant is examined, he should not be granted the concession of bail.

- 3 - It is further submitted that on the date of the incident, i.e., when the deceased - Vipin Goel committed suicide, the petitioner had contacted him in the morning and had refused to repay the loan amount, which further aggravated the situation.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant material available on record with their able assistance. 6.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed that the factual aspects highlighted by learned counsel for the complainant are matters which are required to be proved during the course of trial, and the burden in that regard lies upon the prosecution. It is further a matter of record that the petitioner is inside the jail for a period of about 021⁄2 months and the trial has not yet commenced. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that further incarceration of the petitioner inside jail would not serve any useful purpose. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

7.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

- 4 - 8.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record.

9.

Petition stands disposed of.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 09, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No