11 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-2936729367 -2026202620262026 132132132132 ININININ THETHETHETHE HIGHIGHIGHIGGHGHGHGH COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT OFOFOFOF PUNJABPUNJABPUNJABPUNJAB ANDANDANDAND HHHARYANAHARYANAHHHARYANAHARYANA ATATATAT CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-22936729367 2026202620262026 Pardeep Singhh ….Petitionerr versus State of Punjaab …Respondentt DateDateDateDate ofofofof decisidecisidecisidecisiion:ion:ion:ion: JulyJulyJulyJuly 15,151515,,, 2026202620262026 DateDateDateDate ofofofof UploaUploaUploaUploaading:ading:ading:ading: JulyJulyJulyJuly 15,151515,,, 2026202620262026 CORAM:CORAM:CORAM:CORAM: HON’BLEHON’BLEHON’BLEHON’BLE MR.MR.MR.MR. JUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICE SUMEESUMEESUMEESUMEEETETETET GOELGOELGOELGOEL Present:-Present:Present:Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Sandhu, Advvocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Puunjab. ******************** SUMEETSUMEETSUMEETSUMEET GOGOGOGOOEL,OELOELOEL,,, J.J.J.J. (ORAL)(ORAL)(ORAL)(ORAL) Present petition has been filed undder Section 483 of the BNSS, 20233 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.78 datedd 22.08.2024, reegistered for the offences punishaable under Sections 420, 468, 471,, 120-B of the IIPC, 1860, at Police Station Joga, DDistrict Mansa.

2. The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR in question is that thee complainant, namely, Raj Singh Pardeep Singhh (petitioner herein) and his sister,, Navdeep Kaurr alias Mandeep Kaur, induced thee complainant by assuring that theyy would arrangee visas for the complainant, his sson and his daughter for travel too Cyprus. On thhis representation, a deal was finaalized for a total consideration off ₹9,00,000/-, oout of which the complainant alleegedly paid a sum of ₹4,52,000/-,, comprising ₹₹2,52,000/- in cash and the remmaining amount through onlinee transactions. IIt is further alleged that the visas puurportedly arranged by the accusedd MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-20262936729367 202620262026 were subsequently found to be forged and fabricated, thereby cheating the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 14.03.2026. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated into the FIR in question on account of monetary dispute between the sister of the petitioner and wife of the complainant. Learned counsel has urged that, in any case, investigation is complete and culmination of trial will take long. Learned counsel has iterated that trial emanating from the FIR in question is a magisterial one. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 04.07.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand:

5.1 GudikantiGudikantiGudikantiGudikanti NarasimhuluNarasimhuluNarasimhuluNarasimhulu andandandand othersothersothersothers vs.vs.vs.vs. PublicPublicPublicPublic Prosecutor,Prosecutor,Prosecutor,Prosecutor, HighHighHighHigh CourtCourtCourtCourt ofofofof AndhraAndhraAndhraAndhra PradeshPradeshPradeshPradesh AIRAIRAIRAIR 1978197819781978 SUPREMESUPREMESUPREMESUPREME COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT 429,429,429,429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep ofArticle 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out inArticle 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-20262936729367 202620262026 criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involvedandsocietyaffected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetarysuretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouringreleasejustlysensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace bytampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus,conditionsmaybehungaroundbailorders, nottocripplebut to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the valuesofour constitution.” 5.2. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as GurcharanGurcharanGurcharanGurcharan SinghSinghSinghSingh vs.vs.vs.vs. StateStateStateState (UT(UT(UT(UT ofofofof Delhi)Delhi)Delhi)Delhi) 1978197819781978 (1)(1)(1)(1) SCCSCCSCCSCC 118,118,118,118, has held as under:

“Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court,court,court,court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond wouldeffectthatend.” 5.3 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as SanjaySanjaySanjaySanjay ChandraChandraChandraChandra vs.vs.vs.vs. CBICBICBICBI (2012)(2012)(2012)(2012) 1111 SCCSCCSCCSCC 40,40,40,40, has held as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-20262936729367 202620262026 of the accused person at his trial byreasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed tobeinnocentuntildulytriedanddulyfound guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custodypending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any personshouldbepunishedinrespectof anymatter,uponwhich,he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his libertyupon onlythebelief that he willtamper with the witnesses ifleft at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

6. The petitioner was arrested on 14.03.2026, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 15.06.2026. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and it is conceded case that the charges are yet not framed. It is not in dispute that the trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 04.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 18 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s). Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed.allowedallowedallowed Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-20262936729367 202620262026

furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEETSUMEETSUMEETSUMEET GOEL)GOELGOELGOEL

JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE JulyJulyJulyJuly 15,151515,,, 2026202620262026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

11 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-2936729367 -2026202620262026 132132132132 ININININ THETHETHETHE HIGHIGHIGHIGGHGHGHGH COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT OFOFOFOF PUNJABPUNJABPUNJABPUNJAB ANDANDANDAND HHHARYANAHARYANAHHHARYANAHARYANA ATATATAT CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-22936729367 2026202620262026 Pardeep Singhh ….Petitionerr versus State of Punjaab …Respondentt DateDateDateDate ofofofof decisidecisidecisidecisiion:ion:ion:ion: JulyJulyJulyJuly 15,151515,,, 2026202620262026 DateDateDateDate ofofofof UploaUploaUploaUploaading:ading:ading:ading: JulyJulyJulyJuly 15,151515,,, 2026202620262026 CORAM:CORAM:CORAM:CORAM: HON’BLEHON’BLEHON’BLEHON’BLE MR.MR.MR.MR. JUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICEJUSTICE SUMEESUMEESUMEESUMEEETETETET GOELGOELGOELGOEL Present:-Present:Present:Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Sandhu, Advvocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Puunjab. ******************** SUMEETSUMEETSUMEETSUMEET GOGOGOGOOEL,OELOELOEL,,, J.J.J.J. (ORAL)(ORAL)(ORAL)(ORAL) Present petition has been filed undder Section 483 of the BNSS, 20233 seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.78 datedd 22.08.2024, reegistered for the offences punishaable under Sections 420, 468, 471,, 120-B of the IIPC, 1860, at Police Station Joga, DDistrict Mansa.

2. The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR in question is that thee complainant, namely, Raj Singh Pardeep Singhh (petitioner herein) and his sister,, Navdeep Kaurr alias Mandeep Kaur, induced thee complainant by assuring that theyy would arrangee visas for the complainant, his sson and his daughter for travel too Cyprus. On thhis representation, a deal was finaalized for a total consideration off ₹9,00,000/-, oout of which the complainant alleegedly paid a sum of ₹4,52,000/-,, comprising ₹₹2,52,000/- in cash and the remmaining amount through onlinee transactions. IIt is further alleged that the visas puurportedly arranged by the accusedd MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-20262936729367 202620262026 were subsequently found to be forged and fabricated, thereby cheating the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 14.03.2026. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated into the FIR in question on account of monetary dispute between the sister of the petitioner and wife of the complainant. Learned counsel has urged that, in any case, investigation is complete and culmination of trial will take long. Learned counsel has iterated that trial emanating from the FIR in question is a magisterial one. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 04.07.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand:

5.1 GudikantiGudikantiGudikantiGudikanti NarasimhuluNarasimhuluNarasimhuluNarasimhulu andandandand othersothersothersothers vs.vs.vs.vs. PublicPublicPublicPublic Prosecutor,Prosecutor,Prosecutor,Prosecutor, HighHighHighHigh CourtCourtCourtCourt ofofofof AndhraAndhraAndhraAndhra PradeshPradeshPradeshPradesh AIRAIRAIRAIR 1978197819781978 SUPREMESUPREMESUPREMESUPREME COURTCOURTCOURTCOURT 429,429,429,429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep ofArticle 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out inArticle 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-20262936729367 202620262026 criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involvedandsocietyaffected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetarysuretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouringreleasejustlysensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace bytampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus,conditionsmaybehungaroundbailorders, nottocripplebut to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the valuesofour constitution.” 5.2. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as GurcharanGurcharanGurcharanGurcharan SinghSinghSinghSingh vs.vs.vs.vs. StateStateStateState (UT(UT(UT(UT ofofofof Delhi)Delhi)Delhi)Delhi) 1978197819781978 (1)(1)(1)(1) SCCSCCSCCSCC 118,118,118,118, has held as under:

“Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court,court,court,court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond wouldeffectthatend.” 5.3 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as SanjaySanjaySanjaySanjay ChandraChandraChandraChandra vs.vs.vs.vs. CBICBICBICBI (2012)(2012)(2012)(2012) 1111 SCCSCCSCCSCC 40,40,40,40, has held as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-20262936729367 202620262026 of the accused person at his trial byreasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed tobeinnocentuntildulytriedanddulyfound guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custodypending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any personshouldbepunishedinrespectof anymatter,uponwhich,he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his libertyupon onlythebelief that he willtamper with the witnesses ifleft at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

6. The petitioner was arrested on 14.03.2026, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 15.06.2026. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and it is conceded case that the charges are yet not framed. It is not in dispute that the trial emanating from the FIR in question is magisterial one. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 04.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 18 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s). Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed.allowedallowedallowed Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5 CRM-M-29367CRMCRMCRM 29367-20262936729367 202620262026

furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEETSUMEETSUMEETSUMEET GOEL)GOELGOELGOEL

JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE JulyJulyJulyJuly 15,151515,,, 2026202620262026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment