Sandeep Seth Alias Sandeep Sethi Alias Sonu v. State Of Punjab

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 18.05.2026 Sandeep Seth @ Sandeep Sethi @ Sonu . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ashpinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant(s).

**** 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 Sandeep Seth @ Sandeep Sethi @ Sonu 0059 29.09.2024 S. 420, 120-B of IPC Sadar Budhlada Mansa [corresponding S. 318(4) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023] 2.

Complainant - Gurdeep Singh got registered the FIR in question with allegation that on the pretext of sending his son - Manpreet Singh to Canada, deal was struck with accused persons for an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs. Out of which, a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- was transferred into the bank account of the co-accused - Jagpreet Singh, who though took stand before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mansa, that an amount of Rs.10,73,500/- has already been returned to the complainant. Said co-accused - Jagpreet Singh, had already been granted

- 2 - concession of regular bail by learned Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide order dated 15.04.2025, passed in Bail Application No.185, Date of Institution 07.04.2025 (CIS No. BA/450/2025, CNR No.PBMN010013922025), titled as, "State of Punjab v. Jagpreet Singh".

Besides above, another co-accused - Amit Wason, was also granted concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Court of Sessions, Mansa, vide order dated 10.01.2025, passed in Bail Application No.06, Date of Institution 03.01.2025 (CIS No. BA/12/2025, CNR No.PBMN010000352025), titled as, "Amit Wason v. State of Punjab". Copies of both aforesaid orders have been produced in Court, and same are on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is inside the jail since 23.01.2026 and no specific allegation has been levelled against him except that an amount of Rs.5,30,000/- was allegedly handed over to co-accused - Jagpreet Singh, his wife - Kuldeep Kaur, and the present petitioner - Sandeep Seth @ Sandeep Sethi @ Sonu, while they were present at the bus stand of Village Bachuana, Tehsil Budhlada. It is further submitted that all the offences are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and the proceedings are not likely to conclude in the near future. Besides, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of about 04 months (03 months and 25 days, as per custody certificate dated 16.05.2026).

Therefore in the given facts & circumstances and also on the basis of parity with co-accused, prayer for concession of regular bail has made on behalf of the petitioner in the present case. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposes the prayer for bail on the ground of antecedents of the petitioner and his alleged involvement in three other cases.

However, learned State counsel is unable to clarify as to whether petitioner stands convicted in any of the said cases or not. Besides, the factual assertions noticed here-above have also not been disputed. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

- 3 - relevant material available on record.

6.

It is noticed that the present case is triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of about four months inside jail.

It is further noticeable that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Amit Wason and Jagpreet Singh, have already been granted concession of bail by the Courts concerned. Thus, keeping in view the principle of parity and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate not to curtail the personal liberty of the petitioner for an indefinite period.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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.

8.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

9.

Petition stands disposed of.

Misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE May 18, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No