Kadir Khan v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.42776 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.03.2026 Kadir Khan ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *****

Present:

Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocate;

Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate and Ms. Arundhati, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

***** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present second petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.378, dated 11.12.2024, under Sections 318(4), 319, 338, 336(3), 340 BNS (Sections 61(1), 62 & 238 of BNS), registered at Police Station Manesar, District Gurugram. 2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Priya w/o Rajat Thafiran. It was alleged that the complainant was working in Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Manesar. It was alleged that on 06.12.2024, a man came to the bank to open an account with the ID of Mulchandra Prajapati and on verification, it was found that the ID produced by him was fake. It

-2was further alleged that the same person had already opened an account in the branch in November, 2023 in the name of Sahil and in Khoh branch, he opened an account in the name of Krishna. It was alleged that the said person had opened the accounts by creating fake IDs and his real name was found to be Kadir Khan (petitioner). Thus, the request was made to take legal action against all the accused. On the basis of the same, the FIR was registered. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on 11.12.2024. On completion of the investigation, the challan has been presented and on framing of charges, the trial commenced. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram twice praying for the grant of regular bail.

However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram dismissed both the bail applications filed by the petitioner vide orders dated 14.01.2025 and 01.04.2025, respectively. Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court praying for the grant of regular bail by way of filing CRM-M-25264-2025, however the same was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 14.05.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is again before this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present second petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. He has submitted that even otherwise, there is no complaint by anyone regarding the accounts having been

-3allegedly opened by the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars from last about 1 year, 03 months and 09 days. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted regular bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused had opened the accounts in Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank. He has submitted that earlier also the petitioner had opened the bank accounts on the basis of forged documents. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 07 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses have been examined so far. 5.

Heard.

6.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner, on the allegations of opening the accounts by using forged documents, has been arrested in the present FIR on 11.12.2024. On the asking of the Court, learned counsel for the State has apprised the Court that no transactions have been found in the accounts having been opened by the petitioner. Custody certificate earlier produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 01 year, 01 month and 03 days as on 13.01.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Out of total 07 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses have been examined so far.

7.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by

-4both the parties before the trial Court. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 9.

Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 19.03.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No