State of Haryana v. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J

been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.143 dated 28.07.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of , Police Station Ambala Sadar, District Ambala.

#2. The abovementioned FIR has come into being at the instance of ‘Chanda Rani’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. The complainant has levelled allegations against the persons, namely ‘Sonali’, ‘Usha Devi’, ‘Payal’, ‘Sushma’, ‘Gurjeet Singh’, regarding commission of fraud. It has been stated by the above-named complainant that accused ‘Sonali’ (wife of ‘Ramesh Kumar’) and ‘Payal’ approached her and her mother ‘Anita Rani’, who was in dire need of funds for medical treatment. CRM-M-27979-2026 (O&M) 2 According to complainant, the above-named persons allured them to invest in ‘BTC Revolution Company’ and ‘AL-VIRLAND (AVL)/Alvir Land Company’ (both stated to be based in Dubai). As per complainant, the accused assured returns, as interest rate of 7%, and promised that the principal investment amount would double within a stipulated period of 18 months. The complainant further stated that after gaining confidence, the accused induced him to invest a total of Rs.8,43,000/- (Rs.2,20,000/- in BTC Revolution Co. and Rs.6,21,000/- in AL-VIRLAND) and upon maturity, the accused failed to repay the returns/honour their assurance, and later on claimed that the funds were transferred to AVL.

#3. It the case of the prosecution that pursuant abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation, it has been found that one of the depositors directly transferred Rs.4,84,000/- into the personal bank account of ‘Singar Singh’ (the petitioner herein).

#5. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the contents of the FIR itself shows that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of the money allegedly paid by the complainant, and that in fact, the petitioner himself is the victim of the same fraud. CRM-M-27979-2026 (O&M) 3

#6. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has clean antecedents, except one case of similar nature, and that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.

#7. The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel that very specific and prominent role, in the commission of crime, has been attributed to the petitioner, and that the petitioner has been designated as ‘Customer Relations Head’ of M/s AL-VIRLAND (AVL), wherein investment of money was made. While claiming that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is grievous in nature, the learned State Counsel has sought for dismissal of present petition.

#9. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision:- i. that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate; ii. the maximum punishment prescribed for commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment up to seven years; iii. the petitioner is already in custody for a period of five months and ten days; iv. that except one case of similar nature, the petitioner has clean antecedents; CRM-M-27979-2026 (O&M) 4 v. that there is nothing on record to show that any part of the proceeds of crime had benefitted the petitioner; vi. that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner; vii. that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; viii. that detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup is not likely to serve any purpose ix. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and x. that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not participate/cooperate in the trial.

#10. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being CRM-M-27979-2026 (O&M) 5 incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

#11. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’, (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

#12. Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, CRM-M-27979-2026 (O&M) 6 definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

#13. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

#14. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

#15. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovementioned concession shall be subject to following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with CRM-M-27979-2026 (O&M) 7 the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority; (ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

06.07.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable Yes/No Yes/No