Utpal Kumar Chowdhury v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 UTPAL KUMAR CHOWDHURY ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Keshav Pratap, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Sansawal, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, in case FIR No.231 dated 05.08.2025 under Sections 406,420,419,467,468,471 and 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Kaithal.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner induced the complainant to apply for certain tenders and allegedly facilitated him in completing the entire tender process. During the course of such business transactions, an amount of Rs. 18,17,66,526/- was transferred between the parties through banking channels.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that an amount of approximately Rs. 20 crores has already been returned to the complainant through bank transactions. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2025 and prays for regular bail.

-24.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Naveen Bindal, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of the complainant and submit that an amount of Rs. 4 crores is still due from the petitioner, which was paid towards commission. 6.

Ms. Malvika Singh, learned DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. On instructions from PSI Aman, she vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the offence is serious in nature, involving allegations of economic fraud and forgery of government documents. She has filed a reply by way of an affidavit of Bir Bhan, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Kaithal, along with the custody certificate of the petitioner, which are taken on record. She further submits that the petitioner is involved in other FIRs involving substantial amounts. However, it is an admitted position that in the present case, an amount of Rs. 19,86,29,154/- has already been returned to the complainant, which exceeds the initial amount.

7.

This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the complainant.

8.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9.

In view of the submissions made and considering the fact that the present dispute appears to be in the nature of rendition of accounts; that the petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2025; and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the

-3concession of regular bail to the petitioner, as continued detention would not serve the ends of justice.

10.

Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar @ Banu versus State of Punjab, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1341/2026 (arising out of SLP(Cri.) No.18775/2025, decided on 13.03.2026, wherein it has been categorically held that where the accused has remained in custody for a considerable period and the trial has not even commenced, or is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, continued incarceration would amount to punishment without trial. In such circumstances, further detention pending trial is not necessary and the accused is entitled to be released on bail.

11.

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 bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 12.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State/complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

13.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 07.04.2026 (H.S.GREWAL) renu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No