IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229 *****

CRM-M No.51549 of 2025 Date of decision : 12.9.2025 Vikash ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Tanveer S. Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present second 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.782 dated 15.12.2021, under Sections 120-B, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC (Section 201 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in FIR pertaining to cheating involving theft of VAT to the tune of ₹13,28,84,738/- by creating a bogus firm alongwith co-accused, of which the petitioner stood surety, at the time of its registration.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the liability, if any, of the petitioner is only financial in nature and no criminal culpable liability is attributed to him. Learned counsel has further argued that in a petition bearing CRM-M No.45392 of 2025, wherein the co-accused has sought for quashing of the FIR in question alongwith proceedings emanating therefrom, this Court has directed the trial Court to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is a man with 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 12.9.2025 in Court, 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 1.4.2024 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands was presented on 28.6.2024. Total 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. 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.

As per custody certificate dated 12.9.2025 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 01 year, 5 months and 9 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

6.1 The petition in hand is the second bail petition preferred before this Court. The first bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.5.2025. Indubitably, a change in circumstances is inevitable for maintainability of the second/subsequent bail petition—prolonged incarceration undergone by the accused after the rejection of the earlier bail petition constitutes a weighty and relevant consideration in adjudication of the second bail plea. The passage of time and the period of custody cannot be ignored, especially where trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. Keeping in view the extended incarceration of the petitioner and the state of the trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant petition. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to a judgment passed by this Court in Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another: 2024(2) Law Hereld 1140;

relevant whereof reads