Neeraj Thakur v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-73397-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-73397-2025 Date of decision : 28.01.2026 Date of uploading : 28.01.2026 Neeraj Thakur .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:

Mr. Balkar Singh,




 
  
 

   
 




  --- 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.231 dated 23.11.2025 under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Dhauj, District Faridabad.

2.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- "To SHO Dhauj Faridabad. Sir ji, it is submitted that My Name is Jaivinder Lakra. I am posted as Security Manager in Courtyard by Marriott, Pakhal Faridabad. I am resident of Delhi (H.No. 30 Village Ranola, New Delhi-110041). There was marriage in our Hotel from 14.11.2025 to 17.11.2025. The name of the boy was Apurv and the name of Girl was Tanya and the name of the father of boy was Mohit Aggarwal and he is resident of New Rajdhani Enclave Vikash Marg Shakar Pur Bararad Grandhi Nagar, East Delhi-110092 (Mob.9810527499) and the contract of the marriage was in the name of Neeraj Thakur (9999335550) and he is resident of H. No. RC 152, Mithla Vihar Khora Colony, Near Post Office, Sector 62 Ghaziabad Distt. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh201001. The marriage contract value is 85,12,520/-, Out of which, he had paid almost Rupees 45 Lacs. Transferred in the Hotel Bank Account. The

CRM-M-73397-2025 -2total billing of him was Rs 97,22,690/ out of which he had paid around 45 Lacs to us. On Sunday Dated 16.11.2025, time around 7 "o" Clock. Prateek Sharma, who is sales Manager in our Hotel. Prateek is resident of Rohini, Delhi. On 16.11.2025, in evening time around 7 "o" Clock Prateek asked to Neeraj about balance payment then Neeraj Thakur gave three dates 14,15,16 November, 2025 forged Screen Shots to Prateek. Neeraj Thakur had sent from his Mobile no. 9999153599 to Whats app no. pf Prateek 9220392279. ON Monday Dated 17.11.2025. Prateek checked the payment with Finance team whether the payment has been received or not. In the Morning 9 "o" Clock, Finance team told that no payment has been received. Then Prateek called on phone to Neeraj Thakur.

Then Neeraj Thakur told that he is making payment within very short time and in the morning time 8 "o" Clock, he left his Car White Colour Verna and his clothes etc and ran away from here. Kindly appropriate legal be taken against Neeraj Thakur and returned our balance amount. Get it done. Applicant Jaivinder Lakra (9289616133)."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that genesis of FIR in question is primarily of civil dispute, which has been given a colour of criminal case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a man having clean antecedents. 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 27.01.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. 5.

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

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 23.11.2025. Upon culmination of investigation as also trial emanating therefrom, in case occasion so arise, will take long. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of

CRM-M-73397-2025 -3trial. 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.

6.1 As per custody certificate dated 27.01.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 02 months and 05 days, & is not 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 ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, 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

CRM-M-73397-2025 -4State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

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

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 28.01.2026 ja Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No