IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 7^th August, 2025 Pronounced on: 18 t h August, 2025 Vikas Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Arunjeet Singh Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 100 dated 17.03.2023 registered under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC (Section 120-B added later on)

at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant Jagdish Lal, alleging that he was induced by the petitioner, who was posted as a Chowkidar in Judicial Court Complex, Faridkot to get his son employed in Food Corporation of India (for short, FCI) by representing that he knew officers of that department and had got employed several girls there in the past. On being so allured, the complainant gave a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner had forwarded an email to the son of the applicant on 13.02.2021, showing that his son was selected for the post of Assistant Grade-III in FCI. An appointment letter had also been sent to his son through email. Thereafter, the petitioner took away another amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the complainant by getting it deposited in the account of one Aman. His son was made to stay in some PG at Sangrur on the pretext that he would be getting training for 2-3 months and it was only subsequently that the complainant and his son came to know that appointment letter issued in his favour was a fake and fabricated document and they have been duped of their money by the petitioner. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. As per the further allegations, the petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2023. Investigation has now been completed and the petitioner is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offence.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since 10.05.2023. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. Subject offences are triable by Magistrate. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, urged that he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He is a habitual offender being involved in twelve more cases. There are chances of his absconding, if extended benefit of bail. The trial is going on at a fast pace. It is, therefore, argued that he does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have duped the complainant of a huge amount of money on the pretext of procuring a job for his son at FCI.

He is also alleged to have got issued false and fabricated appointment letter and emails for the purpose of cheating the complainant. He has criminal antecedents since several other cases of similar nature are pending against him. Out of 16 prosecution witnesses, 11 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and trial is going on at a fast pace. There is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial. In view of the discussion as made above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA]

JUDGE

1 8 ^th August, 2025 Parveen Sharma