Niranjan Alias Mopal v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.70315 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2026 Niranjan @ Mopal ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM:

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

Present:

Mr. Harshir Joon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

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

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.52, dated 24.02.2025, under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of BNS (Section 3(5) BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Narnaund, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana.

2.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was got registered on the complaint/letter received from the Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Kheri Jalab. It was alleged that on 10.02.2025, a loan application was submitted in the office of Tehsildar along with mutation No.7415-7259. It was alleged that on verification of the mutation numbers, the same were found to be forged and fabricated. It was further alleged that the mutations and the loan application were in the name of Niranjan @

-2Mopal (petitioner) and the witness of the same is Ashish. Thus, the request was made to take legal action against both 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 20.06.2025. 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, Hisar 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, Hisar dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 17.10.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying for grant of regular bail by way of filing the present 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 allegations against the petitioner are regarding the submitting of forged documents for securing the loan. He has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution itself, the alleged offence is only an attempt as no amount of loan whatsoever was released in favour of the petitioner. He has submitted that in the FIR, it has been alleged that the documents found to be forged was prepared by the Branch Manager but he has not been arrayed as an accused in the present FIR. He has submitted that on the conclusion of the investigation, it has been found that the documents, which were submitted before the Bank, were forged by the co-accused, namely, Parveen. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as

-3he 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.

Status report dated 03.03.2026 by way of an affidavit of Davender Nain, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, District Hisar on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed by learned State counsel today in the Court, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She has submitted that the petitioner was the beneficiary of the loan to be disbursed. She has submitted that the petitioner had forged the documents in conspiracy with the co-accused and signed the application. She has submitted that the investigation is complete and the charges have already been framed. She, on instructions, has submitted that out of total 10 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. She has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record. 6.

Heard.

7.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the loan application along with the documents submitted before the Bank were found to be forged. However, there is an admitted position that before the disbursement of the loan, the documents were found to be forged and thus, no amount was disbursed. The petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 20.06.2025. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered an incarceration of 08 months and 21 days as on 12.03.2026. It further reflects

-4that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Out of total 10 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined so far. 8.

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 both 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.

9.

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. 10.

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

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 13.03.2026 JUDGE rittu Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No