← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/23585/2026allowed

Aman Bansal v. State Of Punjab

2026-05-15Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary3 pages

 CRM-M-23585-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 107+202 CRM-M-23585-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.05.2026 Aman Bansal ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

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

Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner   

  ***** 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.9 dated 04.11.2025, registered under Sections 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) BNS and 13(1) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Punjab State Crime, Phase-4, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for about 2 months. He is an employee of co-accused Neeraj, on whose disclosure statement, he has been implicated, who has since been granted regular bail vide order of even date and there is transaction between them, while he did not receive any amount from the bank. It is a case of documentary evidence. Co-accused Harjeet Singh, Branch Manager, who had sanctioned the loan, is in custody. Challan was presented on 20.01.2026 while supplementary on 14.05.2026, however, charges have not been framed and in all there are 25 and 29 prosecution witnesses respectively. The petitioner is not involved in any

 CRM-M-23585-2026 (O&M) 2 other case.

3.

The custody certificate dated 14.05.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 months and 22 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner by the co-accused, who had received amount from the bank as well as other loanees. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being not involved in any other case. 5.

Heard.

6.

         



                 ! !     "  

   20.01.2026 and supplementary on 14.05.2026, however,              25 and 29   #   !

   

$

  $    

        #

 !  !           %     

# 7.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

8.

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the 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

 CRM-M-23585-2026 (O&M) 3 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 15.05.2026 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No