Maninder Pal Verma Alias Rinku v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.40890 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.40890 of 2025 Date of decision : 5.8.2025 Maninder Pal Verma alias Rinku .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Harsh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab Mr. Manglesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Jivesh Goyal, Advocate, for the complainant --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.22 dated 10.3.2025, under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala.

2.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- 'At this time, an application number 9759/Peshi dated 08.01.2025 from Sanjeev Kumar, son of Late Sh. Satpal, resident of House No. 58, Malaria Street, Nabha, District Patiala, through the office of the Hon'ble Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, has been received at the concerned police station, requesting registration of an FIR under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Deep Chand and Rinku, sons of

CRM-M No.40890 of 2025 -2Khem Raj, residents of Alowal, District Patiala, and Khem Raj, resident of Village Alowal, District Patiala.

The content of the application is as follows: To the Hon'ble SSP Sahib, Patiala. Subject: Request for legal action, Respected Sir, I, Sanjeev Kumar, son of Sh. Satpal, resident of House No. 58, Malaria Street, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, I am a businessman and a lawabiding citizen. I have known the above-mentioned individuals for the past 5-7 years. These individuals took money from me against Gold Jewellery that they deposited with me. This transaction took place at their house in Village- Alowal. Later, when I asked them to return my money, they started avoiding me. Whenever, I went to their house, they would misbehave and use abusive language towards me. After some time, I became suspicious that they had no intention of returning my money, I got the Gold Jewellery checked, which they had deposited and found it to be fake.

These individuals have committed fraud with me. Therefore, through this application, I request that legal action be taken against these individuals, and my money be recovered and returned to me. Thank you. Dated: 30/08/2023 Yours faithfully, Sanjeev Kumar Son of Sh. Satpal Resident of House No. 58, Malaria Street, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala Phone: 98142-71311.'

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 18.6.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the genesis of the FIR in question is a loan transaction which took place in the year 2023 and the FIR came to be registered in March 2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant in collusion with the police has twisted the case so as to add criminal colour to it. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4.

Learned State counsel 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 the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 4.8.2025

CRM-M No.40890 of 2025 -3in Court, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehementally opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are severe and serious allegations raised against the petitioner. He has further submitted that in case the petitioner is released on regular bail, there is every likelihood that he may hamper the trial and influence the witnesses. 5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 18.6.2025 and is in continuous custody since then. Completion of investigation as also trail, emanating therefrom, in case occasion so arises, will take its own time. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall essentially be 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 4.8.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of about one month and fourteen days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds

CRM-M No.40890 of 2025 -4to the satisfaction of the Ld. 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 cell-phone 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.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 5.8.2025 Ashwani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No