CRM-M-29817-2026 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (232) CRM-M-29817-2026 (O & M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Yuvraj Sethi …... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Deepak Jaglan, Advocate for the complainant. ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in this petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of the regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.297 dated 20.11.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS (Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 465, 468, 467 and 471 of IPC), registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that prima facie, taking the allegations to be correct, the dispute appears to be civil in nature. Be that as it may, as the petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2026 but none of the 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29817-2026 (O & M) ::2:: far, the Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

3. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, while referring to the reply dated 12.07.2026 which is taken on record contend that the petitioner is an accused in one other case where he is alleged to have cheated his in-laws. The allegations in the present case, prima facie, make out the offence of cheating. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession as prayed for. They, however, concede that the petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2026 but none of the 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. This Court in the case titled as Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab bearing CRM-M24033-2021(O&M) Decided on 31.08.2022 has held as under:-“Therefore, broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts) , in economic offences involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant.” 6. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner shall VISHAL SETHI be adjudicated during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in 2026.07.14 11:12

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29817-2026 (O & M) ::3:: custody since 06.02.2026 but none of the 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. The present case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate and no serious apprehension has been expressed by the State that the petitioner would abscond from justice, tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses if granted the concession of bail. Therefore, in this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. 7. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Yuvraj Sethi is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. The present petition stands disposed of. 9. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. July 13, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) Vishal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-29817-2026 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (232) CRM-M-29817-2026 (O & M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Yuvraj Sethi …... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshwar S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Deepak Jaglan, Advocate for the complainant. ***** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in this petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of the regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.297 dated 20.11.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS (Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 465, 468, 467 and 471 of IPC), registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that prima facie, taking the allegations to be correct, the dispute appears to be civil in nature. Be that as it may, as the petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2026 but none of the 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29817-2026 (O & M) ::2:: far, the Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

3. The learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, while referring to the reply dated 12.07.2026 which is taken on record contend that the petitioner is an accused in one other case where he is alleged to have cheated his in-laws. The allegations in the present case, prima facie, make out the offence of cheating. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession as prayed for. They, however, concede that the petitioner is in custody since 06.02.2026 but none of the 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. This Court in the case titled as Maninder Sharma Vs. State Tax Officer, State, Mobile Wing, Jalandhar, Punjab bearing CRM-M24033-2021(O&M) Decided on 31.08.2022 has held as under:-“Therefore, broadly speaking (subject to any statutory restrictions contained in Special Acts) , in economic offences involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant.” 6. The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner shall VISHAL SETHI be adjudicated during the course of the Trial. Admittedly, the petitioner is in 2026.07.14 11:12

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-29817-2026 (O & M) ::3:: custody since 06.02.2026 but none of the 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. The present case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate and no serious apprehension has been expressed by the State that the petitioner would abscond from justice, tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses if granted the concession of bail. Therefore, in this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. 7. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Yuvraj Sethi is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. The present petition stands disposed of. 9. The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. July 13, 2026 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI) Vishal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VISHAL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document