IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 CRM-M-34332-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.12.2025 Ram Bilas Saini @ Ram Bilash Saini ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Mohit, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 1544 dated 20.11.2023, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station City Panipat, District Panipat. The previous petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

2. As per the allegations, co-accused Mandeep and his wife Ravina Chauhan had approached the complainant/bank for availing business loan by offering their immoveable property for mortgage. The bank, after scrutiny of the documents, had sanctioned the business loan to the tune of Rs. 16 Lakhs on 27.06.2023. An amount of Rs. 15.25 Lakhs was disbursed on 29.06.2023.

During the subsistence of the aforementioned loan, co-accused Mandeep and his wife had obtained another loan of Rs.25 Lakhs from ICICI Home Finance Company, Panipat by mortgaging the same property. It was revealed that they had been approaching various other banks and financial institutions with intent to obtain similar benefits and using the same credentials.

3. As per the further allegations, a preliminary inquiry was conducted on receipt of a complaint from the complainant/bank. During inquiry, it was revealed that the above named co-accused had fraudulently edited Registry No. 177 dated 29.04.2021 by inserting the name of one Shamsher Singh as vendor and name of co-accused Mandeep as purchaser and had submitted the forged registry to the complainant/bank. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Co-accused Mandeep was arrested on 23.11.2023. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. On the basis of his disclosure statement, the petitioner and Ravi, Inam and Sikandar were nominated as additional accused. The petitioner was arrested on 29.11.2024. Investigation now stands completed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Mandeep, which cannot be considered to be admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. He is not the beneficiary of any transaction. Co-accused Ravi, Inam and Siknadar have been granted concession of bai. On parity, the petitioner too deserves to be given the same benefit. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. Conclusion of trial is likely to take long time as no prosecution witness has been examined so far.

His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. He had suffered disclosure statement to the effect that had connived with co-accused Mandeep, Ravi, Inam and Sikandar and on asking of accused Mandeep, had prepared a sale deed by editing and forging the same. In the said sale deed, co-accused Mandeep was shown as purchaser, whereas Shamsher Singh was shown as seller of the said property, though the same was actually owned by one Ved Bharti. After getting the loan of Rs.16 Lakhs sanctioned, accused Mandeep had given them their shares. He had received a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs and had spent the same. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if released on bail. It is, thus, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

7. As per the allegations, co-accused Mandeep by hatching conspiracy with the