101a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.12.2025 Charan Singh Saini ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate and Ms. Surekha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Jagan Nath Bhandari, Advocate, for the complainant.

…

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition praying for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.173 dated 26.05.2024 under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Sohana, District SAS, Nagar.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has handed over a demand draft No.319680 dated 06.10.2025 amounting to Rs.10 lacs to learned counsel for the complainant without prejudicing the right of the paid to the complainant as per the compromise. He submits that an amount of Rs.65 lacs has been paid in cash, whereas, rest amount of Rs.60 lacs was paid through bank transaction. He relies upon the receipts appended with the per the compromise. He submits that the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 and he has never misused the concession of interim bail granted to him. He, thus, submits that the interim bail granted to the petitioner deserves to be made absolute.

3. However, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that though total disputed amount is of Rs.1.35 crores, however, amount of Rs.65 lacs, which as per the petitioner has been paid in cash, is factually incorrect.

4. Learned State counsel has also opposed the bail application of the petitioner. However, she has submitted that the petitioner has never misused the concession of interim bail granted to him by this Court.

5. Heard. It is apparent that the petitioner is on interim bail since 17.11.2025 and the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, however, the same remained unsuccessful. However, learned counsel for the complainant has accepted the demand draft of Rs.10 lacs without prejudice the rights of the complainant. As submitted before this Court, the dispute is only with regard to Rs.65 lacs, which is a subject matter of trial. Thus, this Court find that the interim order dated 17.11.2025 deserves to be made absolute.

6 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17.11.2025, is made absolute subject to his already furnished surety/bail bonds before the trial Court and the same shall be treated as alive till the final disposal of the trial. The petitioner is directed to keep on appearing before the trial Court as and when required to do so and also to comply with the direction of the trial Court given by it during the pendency of the trial. 7. Present petition stands allowed.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)

19.12.2025 JUDGE sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No