Binder v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 BINDER ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Gursewak Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G.Haryana.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 086 dated 09.02.2022 under Sections 177,193,420 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 467,468,471,201 and 120-B of IPC have been added later on registered at Police Station, Ambala City, District Ambala.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that complainant made a complaint to the effect that Randhir Singh appeared as surety of accused Harsh and tendered his bonds along with affidavit that he never stood surety in favour of any other accused in any Court of law. He also declared that he is standing as surety for the first time. It has been reported that he has furnished false affidavit and he already stood surety for accused Nishan Singh on 11.01.2022 and as such filed false affidavit. During interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement and disclosed the name of the present petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. He further contends that the petitioner has been

-2nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by the main accused, Vikas, who himself impersonated Randhir. It is further submitted that, apart from the said disclosure statement, there is no evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He also argues that there is no explanation as to how the petitioner is alleged to have furnished the Aadhaar card or on the basis of which identified documents the same was prepared or supplied.

4.

On the other hand ld. State counsel has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner has played very pivotal role in providing the forged documents to the accused Vikas. She has filed the custody certificate as well status report in Court, which are taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 01 day and is involved in one other case under the IPC. She further submits that out of 19 prosecution witnesses only 03 have been examined so far. 5.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that apart from the disclosure statement there is no corroborated evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence, although the petitioner is involved in one case under the IPC but he has been released on bail in that case; the petitioner is in custody for the last 08 months and 01 day; only 03 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far; and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the view that further detention of

-3the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." 7.

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/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

9.

It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 25.02.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No