Devender @ Vicky Son Of Chander Parkash v. State Of Haryana

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.01.2026 Devender @ Vicky ...

Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL.

****

Present:

Dr. Amol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail for the petitioner in case FIR No.326 dated 21.08.2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 340 of BNS. 2023 registered at Police Station Sirsa Sadar, District Sirsa, Haryana.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has facilitated in getting a No Dues Certificate of the land in question issued to the wife of the complainant which is alleged to be a forged document and got the sale deed registered in an illegal manner. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not the beneficiary of the said document. The Mayor and the Investigating officer, Sirsa in his report vide 03.07.2025 have also stated that the a property ID could only be obtained by the owner

of the property. The Tehsildar and the complainant have been found guilty of the alleged forgery and the FIR has been registered without any inquiry into the matter. He further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Moreover, the petitioner has already undergone a custody of more than 03 months and 01 day. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. R. K. Jangra, AAG., Haryana accepts notice and vehemently opposes the petition for grant of bail on the ground that there is an active role of the petitioner in the commission of the offence in question. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the present petition. Custody certificate filed by the State Counsel is taken on record. As per the said certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a period of 03 months 01 day.

6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last approximately three months and one day and the trial against the petitioner will take a long time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Moreover, bail is rule and jail is exception. Since the continuous incarceration of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

8.

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. 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.

10.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (H.S. GREWAL) JANUARY 15, 2026.

JUDGE archana Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No