IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 22.8.2025 Narender Sharma ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Ritesh Tomar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Chhavi Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

*****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (Oral)

1 Prayer Jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.318 dated 2.12.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 14 Gurugram, District Gurugram.

2. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner has undergone incarceration of 03 months and 26 days and is not involved in other criminal case. He submits that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.2.2025 passed in CRM-M-45015-2024 (Annexure P7), vide order dated 27.2.2025 passed in CRM-M-46238-2024 (Annexure P8) and vide order dated

7.7.2025 passed in CRM-M-32945-2025 (Annexure P10). Therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

On behalf of the State On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate the petitioner has undergone incarceration of 03 months and 26 days. The counsel opposes the present petition stating that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature as he was actively involved in committing fraud and another case of similar nature is also pending against him.

3. Analysis From the above discussion, it can be culled out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 03 months and 26 days, similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.2.2025 passed in CRM-M- 45015-2024 (Annexure P7), vide order dated 27.2.2025 passed in CRM-M- 46238-2024 (Annexure P8) and vide order dated 7.7.2025 passed in CRM- M-32945-2025 (Annexure P10) and is not a habitual offender. As per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 1.7.2025, charges stands framed on 30.7.2025, out of 22 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.

Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our