Ashok Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No.233 Case No. : CRM-M-38047-2025 Decided On : November 06, 2025 Ashok Kumar ....

Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana ....

Respondent CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

* * * Present :

Mr. Akshay Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate and Ms. Amyia, Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sulinder Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

:

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.35 dated 29.03.2025, under Section 409 IPC, registered at Police Station Kanina, District Mahendergarh. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by the office of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Mohindergarh against the petitioner, alleging therein that the petitioner, while posted as Manager in the Kanina Primary Agricultural Co-operative Ltd., embezzled huge amount of Rs.16,77,837.18. It was, therefore, prayed to take action against the petitioner. On the basis of this complaint, the FIR in question was

registered.

Learned counsel for petitioner has produced in Court the Chargesheet, framed by learned Trial Court on 03.11.2025, as per which, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Section 406 IPC for embezzling amount of Rs.16,77,837.18. Learned counsel contended that the said amount has already been deposited by the petitioner along with interest @ 18% p.a. The petitioner has already retired from the job long time back. He is 70% physically handicapped and is suffering from locomotive disability. He is the sole caregiver to his 82 year old mother, who is suffering from life threatening illness. No other criminal case is pending against him. He is behind bars since long. He has further urged that trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the bail petition while contending that there are serious allegations of embezzlement of huge amount of Rs.16,77,837.18 against the petitioner. So, he does not deserve the concession of bail. However, he fairly admitted that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

As per the allegations, though there was embezzlement of Rs.16,77,837.18 on the part of the petitioner, but it is also the admitted fact that the said amount has been returned along with interest. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. No other case is pending against him.

As per the Custody Certificate dated 04.11.2025, which has been placed on record, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 05 months and 08 days. Trial of the case is going on and conclusion of the trial 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.

November 06, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.