Mandeep Arora v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29181-2026 Date of decision: 26.05.2026 MANDEEP ARORA ... Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

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

Mr. J.P.S. Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

***** 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.09 dated 04.11.2025, U/Ss 316(5), 318(3), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 409, 418, 420, 419, 465, 468, 467, 471, 120-B IPC) & later added on Sections 7(A), 13(1) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) registered at P.S. Punjab State Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.

Learned Senior Counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for the last about 02 months and 11 days. He is known to the complainant for the last more than two decades and had taken a friendly loan of Rs.3,40,000/-, which he returned on 14.09.2024, for which reference is made to the online payment receipts (Annexures P-6 and P-7); challan was presented on 14.05.2026; charges have not yet been framed; in all there are 28 prosecution witnesses and not involved in any other case. 3.

Learned State Counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the amount was transferred to the petitioner, which he had received as a RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.05.26 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

CRM-M-29181-2026 -2commission on account of arranging clients for co-accused Neeraj Kochar. However, she is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of trial, charges having not been framed and the petitioner being not involved in any other case.

4.

Heard.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 2 months and 11 days; not involved in any other case; charges having not been framed as yet; there being 28 prosecution witnesses in all, 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. 6.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case 7.

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.

8.

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 26.05.2026.

Rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.05.26 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order