IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 Nirdosh @ Nirdosh Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

This is second for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.37 dated 12.03.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B, 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act 2013 and Sections 21(1), 21(2) and 21(3) of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, Police Station City Safidon, District Jind.

2. The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Manoj Kumar’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated stated by the above named complainant that petitioner and his co-accused formed a company in the name and style of ‘GFX Academy Pvt. Ltd.’ and allured the complainant and other investors to invest in the above mentioned firm on the assurance that return will be at the rate of 5% per week. According to complainant it was also assured that double of the money, so invested, shall be paid at the end of 40 weeks. As per complainant initially the interest at the rate of 5% was paid by the petitioner and his co-accused, but later on they stopped paying the money and refused to return even the invested money, and thus, committed the above mentioned offence.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that in similar cases the benefit of bail has been accorded to the petitioner and his co- accused. It has also been contented by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than one year and ten days, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner since the first petition was not decided on merits and it was dismissed as withdrawn, the second petition is maintainable.

7. The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case there are very specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to commission of fraud, and that the complainant is not the only person who has been cheated by the petitioner and his co-accused. As per learned State counsel, in fact, a large number of such investors have been duped by the petitioner.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:-

i) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than one year and ten days;

ii) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

iii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of offence is imprisonment up to 7 years;

iv) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the co-

accused;

v) that the benefit of bail has already been accorded to the petitioner in other cases, wherein similar allegations have been levelled against him;

vi) that the investigation in this case is already complete and, therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possessio