Mahesh Toshniwala v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.07.2025
....PETITIONER V/s
....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:
Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***** SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) 1.
Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.705 dated 25.11.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal. 2.
The case set up in the FIR in question is as follows:-
!
" #$%&%'&()*+,-*$)%*(%).#, /0 1 ,2
,
, " #
3, 4
0 / 6 0, /2
7
,
,3
,
!
" # $%&%'&()*+,-*$)%*(%)., /0 1 ,2
,
, " #
6,! 8
9
, :!6,
! 6
6 ! ,! 8 ! 6
0 8 ;
,!
!
0 8 ;
5
1 '$ 6, / !
/1 ' 6 '-'%&%&',1 ' 6&+ &-'%&%&',1 ' 6 %$ %(&%&&,1 ' 6 '-%(&%&&,1 .% &(%(&%&&,1 ) %)+&%&&,1 . %*%+&%&&,1 '* &$%+&%&&,1 '% %.%)&%&&,1 '% %* %)&%&&,1 '% '%%)&%&&,1 '% %(%-&%&&
1 .% %&%'&%&.,
8.% '*%' &%&. .% &.%'&%&. '%
'%%&&%&. &* +%% '*%&&%&. &%
%)%(&%&. ) %+%+&%&.,! - 6'$ +%%
.'($..&.)($ /
!
7 6/ + 6
%&%*&%&' & 6+%
%$%* &%&' 6 /
/
, !
8'+ 6,)$ ,+%%
!
0 8 ;
!
6 , / ! 8
/ /
0 8 !
8 !,! 6 ! 8 , ! !6
6
,
/
8 , ! 6
6
! ! !
/ ,
6 ,!
/
/
/ 8 6 /
, 4 6
8
6,!
/ 8
/ <5
0
5
/ 6 0, /%&%$&%&+2
7
=
*-*)%++.'(> 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the petitioner had only assisted the complainant's son in pursuing studies abroad, and no culpability is assignable to him. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 5.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6.
The petitioner was arrested on 09.04.2025 and has been in custody since then. It is not in dispute that the challan has already been presented on 28.04.2025. Total 8 prosecution witnesses have been cited out of which none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that the trial will take its own time. It is further not in dispute that the FIR in question entails a magisterial trial. The rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties give rise to contentious issues which shall be essentially ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per custody certificate dated 21.07.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of three months and ten days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 7.
In view of totality of factual matrix of the present case, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8.
In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9.
Ordered accordingly.
10.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11.
Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No