225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-14474-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.03.2026 Vipin Sharma @ Vipin Kumar @ Vipin ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of trial in case FIR No. 0204 dated 07.05.2024, registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 506 IPC (corresponding to Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS), at Police Station Bhiwani City, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present FIR has been registered on the complaint of Pawan Dalmia alleging that he along with another person had entered into an agreement with M/s Kizansh Spirits Pvt. Ltd. for C&F agency in the State of Haryana and, in pursuance thereof, deposited an amount of about ₹1.60 crores in the bank account of the company. It is alleged that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, in connivance with each other, misappropriated the said amount, failed to honour their commitments, and even extended threats when the complainant demanded the money back. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered and the petitioner was arrested and is in custody.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is merely a worker/employee of the company and has been falsely implicated in the present case. His case is stated to be on parity with co-accused Hariom, who has already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case. It is further submitted that no amount has been transferred in the account of the petitioner nor has any amount been received by him in any form. Similarly, no amount was given to co-accused Hariom and, therefore, the petitioner stands on identical footing. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last one month and eighteen days and, therefore, he deserves to be released on regular bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana, has appeared and contested the present petition on the ground that serious allegations involving an amount of approximately ₹1.75 crores have been levelled in the present case and the petitioner has acted in collusion with the co-accused persons. It is, thus, contended that he is not entitled to the concession of bail. However, learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that co-accused Hari Om, who is similarly placed, has already been granted bail.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the petitioner is limited to the extent that he was working as an employee of the company. There is no material to show that any amount has been transferred in his account or that any money was directly handed over to him. Furthermore, co-accused Hari Om, who is similarly situated, has already been granted anticipatory bail. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of parity as well as the limited role attributed to him.

7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/Duty Magistrate.

8. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case

9. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

March 20, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No