IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-70841-2025 Date of decision: 05.02.2026 JINDERPAL SINGH DHALIWAL ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kooner, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0108 dated 15.09.2023 registered under Sections

420, 406 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Joga, District Mansa.

2. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution are that, the petitioner along with co-accused had cheated the complainant for and amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, on the pretext of sending him abroad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He argued that the FIR in question was registered after an unexplained delay of about 05 months, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further argued that all the offences are triable by the Magistrate. The petitioner is in custody since 15.01.2025. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Further, co-accused Gurdeep Singh (son of the petitioner) has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 20.03.2025. The investigation in the case is complete; challan stands presented; charges have also been framed; out of 15 prosecution witnesses none has been examined. He further submits that the trial will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and custody certificate, which are taken on record and while referring to the same, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in multiple other cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record of the case, it is evident that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 01 year; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have also been framed; out of 15 prosecution witnesses none has been examined and the fact that trial may take a long time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in further custody. His continued detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in near future would be violative of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance is placed upon a judgment in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that keeping somebody behind the bars, till his guilt is proved, for an indefinite period amounts to infringement of her right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India and is against the principle “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception”.

7. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal ante