IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218 CRM-M-6938-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Sukhdev Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.67 dated 16.04.2025, registered under Sections 61(2), 351(2), 351(3), 318(4), 316(2), 249, 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS; 4, 5, 6, of PCMC Act; 3(2) of HPIDFE Act & 21(2) BUDS Act at Police Station Sadar Ratia, District Fatehabad.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 5 months. He alleges false implication. There is no amount that came in his account. Co-accused Dr. Sukhdev Singh has opened the company under the name and style of Shishpal Frontlane Consultancy and Services Private Limited in village Sehnal, to which he owned 49998 shares while 1% is alleged by Vikram Singh and another 1% is alleged to the petitioner and now, had shifted the same in the house of Baljinder Singh @ Bindu and there are 25 agents in it. Co-accused Manjinder Singh @ Bindu Baba has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026, Annexure P-5, while Raj Kumar @ Raj Singla granted regular bail vide order dated 04.12.2025, Annexure P-4. Co-accused Jitender Kumar and Manjeet Singh, who were agents and also received amount, part of which, they had deposited in the company’s account, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.08.2025 and 30.09.2025, Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively. Challan was presented on 24.11.2025, however, charges have not been framed and in all there are 155 prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is not involved in any other case.

3. The custody certificate dated 09.02.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 5 months and 9 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of being CEO of the company, in whose account, the amount was paid by the complainant for it to be doubled and Rs.1,00,000/- has been recovered from him. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being not involved in any other case.

5. Heard.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 5 months and 9 days; not involved in any other case; co-accused are on bail; challan stands presented on 24.11.2025, however, charges are yet to be framed and there are a total of 155 prosecution witnesses, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

7. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(