Sandeep Kumar alias Kamal Sandeep Kumar alias Kamal Haryana State of Haryana v. Date of decision

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Present: Present: Present: for the petitioner. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana. Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana. , J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL ***** ***** ***** ***** Present petition has been filed under Section of the BNSS, petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner 257 grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.257 dated 14.07.2024

14.07.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406, ences punishable under Sections 406, B, 201 of IPC and Sections 10, 24 of the Immigration Act, at 420, 506, 120-B, 201 of IPC and Sections 10, 24 of the Immigration Act, at B, 201 of IPC and Sections 10, 24 of the Immigration Act, at 420, 506, 120 Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that the The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that complainant, namely, Harminder Singh, alleged that accus complainant, ed Vijay Pandey Harminder Singh, alleged that accused Vijay Pandey introduced him to Kamal (petitioner herein) introduced him to Kamal Komal, who (petitioner herein) and co-accused – Komal, who purportedly assured him that they could arrange for his daughter’s admission purportedly assured him that they could arrange for his daughter’s admission purportedly assured him that they could arrange for his daughter’s admission purportedly assured him that they could arrange for his daughter’s admission and study visa to Australia. Acting on their representations, the complainant and study visa to Australia. Acting on their representations, the complainant and study visa to Australia. Acting on their representations, the complainant and study visa to Australia. Acting on their representations, the complainant paid various amounts through bank transfers and cash, totaling paid various amounts through bank transfers and cash, totaling ₹14,62,000/-. . payment documents The accused allegedly provided forged admission and fee-payment documents The accused allegedly provided forged admission and fee The accused allegedly provided forged admission and fee 2222 2026 24785----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----24785 20262026 24785 24785 of CQ University, Australia, and continued demanding further money on different pretexts. Subsequently, the complainant discovered that no genuine arrangements had been made and that the accused had allegedly cheated several other persons in a similar manner. When he sought a refund, the accused allegedly refused to return the money and threatened him with dire consequences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2026. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question since the FIR-complainant/ victim was not able to send her daughter abroad to enable her to pursue her studies. Learned counsel has further submitted that challan, upon culmination of investigation, already stands presented and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner into custody. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a man aged 26 years and is the sole bread-earner of his family. 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 27.05.2026, 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: 2026 24785----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----24785 20262026 24785 24785 3333 Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, 5.1 Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: 429, 429, 429, “10. The significance and sweep of Article 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 in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as 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 involved and society affected. 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, monetary suretyship 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 favouring release justly sensible. 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 by tampering 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, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.”

5.2. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as