SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 82917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
PRINCE @ ADALKHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent
CRM-M_8219_2026



##PAGE1##

CRM-M-8219-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Sr.No.237

CRM-M-8219-2026

Decided on : 20.04.2026

Prince @ Adalkha

...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ...... Respondent

CORAM : (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:6)

***

Present : Mr. Kunal Choksi, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana

for the respondent-State.

***

(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:8), J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in case FIR No.119 dated 04.12.2024 registered under Sections

316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 238(c),

319, 61 of BNS and Section 66-D of IT Act added later on), at Police Station

Cyber Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner

along with co-accused duped the complainant for a sum of Rs.83,800/-.

Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with

MAMTA MALHOTRA

2026.04.21 15:39

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

##PAGE2##

CRM-M-8219-2026 2

the said offence. He further contends that the petitioner was neither present

at the spot, nor was named in the FIR and initially the FIR was registered

against unknown persons. It has also been contended that during

investigation, co-accused Rajesh Kumar was arrested and the petitioner has

been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement

made by the said co-accused Rajesh Kumar. Apart from the disclosure

statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the

offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-

accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. He further

submitted that the petitioner has been nominated in the present case by the

prosecution because he is co-accused of Rajesh Kumar in FIR No.94 of

2025. Learned counsel submits that mobile number from which call had

made to the complainant is not registered in the name of the petitioner.

Further, co-accused Ravi Kumar Tiwari, in whose account Rs.36,000/- was

transferred and Rahul Rajput in whose account Rs.20,000/- was transferred

and Raj Kumar have already been granted the concession of bail by the

learned trial Court as well as by this Court. No recovery is to be effected

from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2025. The

investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges

have also been framed. He further submitted that out of total 13 prosecution

witnesses, only 01 has been examined till date and as such, the trial will take

a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping

him behind bars. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be

allowed.

4. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:11)

MAMTA MALHOTRA

2026.04.21 15:39

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

##PAGE3##

CRM-M-8219-2026 3

5. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice of

the petition and has filed the custody certificate. The same is taken on

record. He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by

submitting that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature.

He has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in multiple other

cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after

perusing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top