High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/66796/2025allowed

Mohd Javed v. State Of Haryana

2026-01-14Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel6 pages

CRM-M No.66796 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222/3 ***** CRM-M No.66796 of 2025 Date of decision : 14.1.2026 Date of uploading : 15.1.2026 Mohd. Javed .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana Mr. Nikhil Anand, 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.174 dated 4.7.2023 under Sections 120-B, 408, 420 and 506 of the IPC, Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 201 of IPC added and Section 66-D of IT Act deleted later on), registered at Police Station Sector 17, Faridabad.

The gravamen of the FIR in question is that Manish Bindal, Proprietor of Trans Cargo India preferred a complaint to The Commissioner of Police, Sector 31, Faridabad on 08.05.2023 against his

CRM-M No.66796 of 2025 -2ex-employees, namely, Mohd. Javed, Narender Kumar @ Narender Poonia, Rakesh Sharma, Sudhir Bhardwaj and Coco Holland Tractor, R.K. Service Station, Ishwar Filling Station, Highway Petro Diesel IOCL etc. The complainant company had appointed four qualified professionals to conduct an internal audit in November 2020. Aforesaid auditors reported misappropriation of 1.62 crore by the accused persons in the company within a time period of one year. Accused Mohd. Javed being an employee of the complainant company had dealings with the IOCL affiliated pumps like Coco Holland Tractor, R.K. Service Station, Ishwar Filling Station. Accused Mohd. Javed, Narender Kumar @ Narender Poonia and Rakesh Sharma withdrew money from the account of the complainant company under different pretexts and transferred it to different account numbers. The internal audit team finally reported that the accused persons committed misappropriation of 2.32 Crore. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 21.6.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the dispute actually pertain to maintenance of accounts and the Management found some discrepancy therein on account of which the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel has further submitted that, in any case, the investigation qua the FIR in question is complete and trial is under-way. Learned counsel has further submitted that the case is magisterial one. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean

CRM-M No.66796 of 2025 -3antecedents. 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 12.1.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the bail petition has argued that there are direct and serious allegations against the petitioner as he was actively involved in manipulating the accounts so as to defraud the complainant-company. Learned counsel has further iterated that the requisite recovery of the amount defrauded by the petitioner has not yet been recovered and thus, he ought not to be granted the concession of regular bail.

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

Before delving into the rival contentions,

!" #$ %&% '$ ( )*

# # $

CRM-M No.66796 of 2025 -4- &

' ()

' * + ,%

% )

% '

0 %

% 1

# # +$( ,- !" +- # "

% %

1 !

#./ 0 +*1*- # )1

# %

CRM-M No.66796 of 2025 -5-

)

1 #

1 6.3 The petitioner was arrested on 21.6.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 5.8.2025. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited. It is conceded case of the parties that none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. It is not in dispute that the trial in question is magisterial one. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall 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 12.1.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 6 months and 22 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

CRM-M No.66796 of 2025 -6ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to 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.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

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

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 14.1.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No