Vijay Sharma @ Ashwani Chaudhary v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M No.21588 of 2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.21588 of 2026 Date of decision : 24.4.2026 Date of uploading : 24.4.2026 Vijay Sharma @ Ashwani Chaudhary .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. S.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate, for the complainant --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.101 dated 6.6.2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 of IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram.
2.
The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner alongwith main accused Pavinder and others met the complainant by impersonating Kavinder as an owner of 15 bighas land and, defrauded the complainant by making him to part away with huge amount of ₹45 lakhs. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 8.12.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the prime role attributed to the petitioner as per the case of the prosecution, is
CRM-M No.21588 of 2026 -2that he has introduced the complainant to Kavinder. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 4 months. Learned counsel has further argued that the case emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one and the challan (charge sheet) already stands presented. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4.
Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 23.4.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.
4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Learned counsel has further argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are direct and serious in nature and in case he has granted the concession of bail, there is all likelihood of the petitioner to flee from the hands of justice and interfering with the prosecution evidence.
5.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 8.12.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 6.3.2026 and subsequently filed. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. The trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. It is, thus, indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time.
CRM-M No.21588 of 2026 -3-
!" #$ %&% '$ ( )*
!
"#
# # $
%
&
%
#
%
'
' ()
' * + ,%
-
./
%
-
,
%
,
% )
%
$
CRM-M No.21588 of 2026 -4-
% '
'
0 %
!
%
% 1
!
# # +$( ,- !" + - # "
" &
-
!
%
% %
/
2
1
# !
#./ 0 +*1 *- # )1
# %
%
3
/
)
)
1 #
/
4
CRM-M No.21588 of 2026 -5-
-
1 The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
6.3 As per custody certificate dated 23.4.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 4 months and 16 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more FIR(s). Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments
CRM-M No.21588 of 2026 -6of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed. 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. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
CRM-M No.21588 of 2026 -710. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 24.4.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No