Balwant Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.08.2025 BALWANT SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

Present:

Mr. Sanpreet Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. **** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 87 dated 19.02.2025 under Sections 316(2) 318(4) of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Sector-13/17, Panipat, District Panipat.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with his co-accused has embezzled an amount of Rs. 12,46,000/- on the pretext of sending the complainant, his wife and daughter to Australia. The complainant transferred Rs. 8,00,000/- from his father's account to the bank account of the co-accused, Manmeet, while an additional amount of Rs. 4,46,000/- was given to the petitioner in cash.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner did not receive any

money from the complainant, nor any financial transaction took place between the petitioner and the complainant.The petitioner has been implicated because of the co-accused Manmeet Singh, son of the petitioner who is the main accused in this case. He further submits that the co-accused Manmeet Singh resides separately and has been disowned by the petitioner due to his misdeeds. The petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2025. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Tapan Masta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana 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, the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 months 28 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. 6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 months 28 days, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, 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 ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

10.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 01.08.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No