← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/32711/2025allowed

Sahil Farid v. State Of Punjab

2025-07-08Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.07.2025 Sahil Farid

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 

Present:

Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate, and Mr. Jasdeep Singh Salooja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Bhagyashree Setia, Advocate for the complainant. **** 

 , J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (439 Cr.P.C.) in case FIR No.57 dated 04.05.2024, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, Punjab.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that petitioner had sold a car MERCEDES GL-350 bearing registration No.WB-02-AD-9180 since he was a second-hand car dealer. The deal was finalized for a sum of Rs.24 Lakhs and 16 Lakhs were paid to the petitioner by the complainant. However, petitioner remained fail to deliver the same in time. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to unforeseen technical issue with the vehicle, the same needed work and hence, it could not be delivered to the complainant in time. He further submits that complainant had offered another alternative vehicle and no

offence under Section 420 IPC is made out because it is transaction of sale and purchase. As per custody certificate, petitioner has undergone 02 months and 24 days custody. Learned counsel further submits that since the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, therefore, petitioner be released on regular bail.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate dated 07.07.2025, the petitioner is in custody for 02 months and 24 days.

6.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7.

In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the parties and considering the undergone period and the fact that trial is likely to take such a long time and as such, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, heavy surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

( ) 

 08.07.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No