221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: November 10, 2025 Ravinder ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

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 bearing FIR No.341 dated 28.10.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) (Section 371 of the IPC added later on), at Police Station Gohana Sadar, District Sonipat.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner and his co-accused allegedly misappropriated an amount of ₹55.00 lakhs, obtained from the complainant under the pretext of arranging a government job for the complainant’s son. Subsequently, the petitioner issued two cheques amounting to ₹27.00 lakhs and ₹28.00 lakhs, respectively, both of which were dishonoured upon presentation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 30.06.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has not received any money from the complainant-side. Learned counsel has submitted that investigation, in the case, is already complete and trial is underway. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. 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 09.11.2025 in the Court today, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand:

5.1 Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT

429, relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivati