##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manan Chugh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents Date of decision: 15.09.2026 Date of Uploading : 15.09.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Kaushal, Advocate, Ms. Devyani Kaushal, Advocate and Mr. Abhimanyu Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.

Mr. Gurfateh Singh Khosa, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439(2) and 482 of the Cr.P.C.) seeking setting-aside of order granting regular bail to respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram in FIR No.231 dated 10.11.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 316(2) of BNS at Police Station Sector 53, Gurugram, Haryana.

2. The relevant portion of the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, reads as under:

“ Accordingly, the present bail application stands allowed in the interest of justice and the applicant-accused is hereby admitted to regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqua/Duty Magistrate. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail to the applicant-accused, in case he is found involved in any other case or misusing the concession of bail, in any manner. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation to the accused.”

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order passed by the Court below granting regular bail to respondent No.2 is illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without proper appreciation of the material collected during investigation. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the allegations are not of a simple civil or contractual dispute but discloses a deliberate act of cheating, forgery and dishonest inducement from the very inception of the transaction. According to learned senior counsel, respondent No.2, along with her father and other co-accused persons, has been operating a travel ₹

business and the petitioner has paid an amount of 8,90,000/- towards the proposed travel arrangements. It has been further contended that when the date of travel approached, the petitioner discovered that the air tickets and hotel reservations were forged, cancelled or otherwise invalid which compelled him to make fresh arrangements at a much higher rate which caused him substantial loss. Learned senior counsel has emphasized that the Court below has committed a serious error by treating the matter as one within the realm of breach of an agreement. It has been further contended that the observation of the Court below regarding a thin line between breach of agreement and cheating is contrary to the material available on record. Furthermore, the Court below has failed to consider the material and relevant circumstances while granting the concession of regular bail to respondent No.2. It has been further contended that the petitioner had appeared before the Court below and furnished the details of several FIRs and other material showing the alleged involvement of respondent No.2 in similar other transactions but the said material was neither properly taken on record nor considered while passing the impugned order. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that despite repeated demands for refund of the amount in question, the respondent No.2 allegedly avoided the same and adopted evasive tactics. According to learned senior counsel, the respondent No.2 has links outside India and was, on an earlier occasion, she was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport while allegedly attempting to flee