← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/19359/2026allowed

Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Haryana

2026-04-17Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19359-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 17.04.2026 Kuldeep Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Ms. Vanshika Daaria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG, Haryana.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.349 dated 23.10.2025, registered under Sections 212(A), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 61(2) BNS (corresponding to Sections 177, 182, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC), at Police Station Ambala City, Haryana.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for about 5 months. The allegations against him are of having produced fake surety for his bail granted in a complaint filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act. He is sole bread winner of the family having 2 minor children. Challan has been presented on 17.02.2026, charges have been framed on 19.02.2026 and none, out of 8 PWs, has been examined. He is not involved in any other case but for one mentioned above. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3.

The custody certificate dated 15.04.2026 filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 4 months and 27 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having produced fake surety. He, however, is unable to controvert with regard to stage and petitioner being on bail in another case.

5.

Heard.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for last 4 months and 27 days; challan stands presented on 17.02.2026, charges have been framed on 19.02.2026 and out of 8 PWs, none has been examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed. 7.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

9.

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 17.04.2026 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No