Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.207 Case No. : CRM-M-32919-2025 Decided On : September 12, 2025 Sandeep Kumar ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Haryana ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Vikas Gulia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sulinder Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.83 dated 24.03.2025, under Sections 212(a), 318(4), 319, 336(3), 338, 340, 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala (Annexure P-1).
Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the present case are that one Amit Sharma, who was posted as a Reader in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, reported to the police that in a case titled "Vikas vs. State", one Mandeep son of Sahib Singh furnished surety bonds on behalf of the accused and he was identified by a person namely Man Mohan Singh. It was further alleged that the documents furnished by the said surety were found to be forged. On the basis of these facts, submitted by the Reader of the Court, the FIR in question was registered and
during the course of investigation, it transpired that the present petitioner stood surety for accused Vikas and impersonated himself as Mandeep, thereby furnishing surety bonds etc., which were later found to be forged documents.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he stood as surety by impersonating himself as Mandeep and other than that, there is no other allegation against the petitioner regarding forgery. He was not aware that the documents furnished with surety were forged. Learned counsel further submitted that the main accused Vikas and another co-accused Man Mohan Singh, who identified the petitioner as surety, have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.08.2025 and 03.06.2025 respectively. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 24.03.2025 and therefore, it has been prayed that he be released on bail.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposed the present bail petition while contending that the petitioner had impersonated himself as Mandeep, whereas his real name was Sandeep son of Mahinder Pal (present petitioner). He also indulged in submitting the forged documents before the Court in order to get released the main accused Vikas. Thus, he actively participated in the offence in question and does not deserve the concession of bail.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
The allegations against the petitioner are that by way of impersonation and submitting forged documents, he tried to play fraud upon
the Court. The main accused Vikas, for whose release, the petitioner allegedly impersonated as surety - Mandeep, had already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2025, passed in CRM-M-33261-2025 and another co-accused Man Mohan Singh, who identified the petitioner as surety, have also been ordered to be released on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.06.2025, passed in CRM-M-270472025. Challan has already been presented in the Court. As per the Custody Certificate placed on record, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 05 months and 17 days, as on 11.09.2025. Trial of the case is going on and conclusion of the same is likely to take considerable time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
September 12, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.