Suryakant J akant Jha v. State of Ha of Haryana

Judgment

1. Petitioner, who is an accuse accused in case FIR No. 290 date

11.12.202 .2024, registered against him unde under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 33 4), 338, 336(3), 340 3), 340(2), 61(2), 111(1)(iii), 3(5) of (5) of BNS, at Police Station Udyo Udyog Vihar, Guru r, Gurugram, has filed the present pet nt petition under Section 483 of BNS f BNSS for grant of rant of bail.

2. In nutshell, the allegation ag ion against the petitioner is that he at he in criminal co inal conspiracy with other accused, c sed, committed calculated fraud upo d upon innocent p cent persons including the complaina plainant by falsely representing the g them regarding th ding their airfare bookings and holiday holiday packages. Money was collecte ollected from victim victims with the promise to provide le vide legitimate travel service. Howeve owever, funds recei s received from them were diverted erted for some other purposes. Thu . Thus, victims wer ms were deprived of their hard earned earned money. Modus operandi used b used by GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -2- petitioner a ioner and other accused was that they u they used to issue dummy tickets to th ts to the persons des ns desirous of going abroad. The tick he tickets were cancelled by the Airline Airlines Company pany on account of non-payment o ent of travel fare. It is further th ther the allegation ation against petitioner that severa several such like frauds had bee d been committed itted by him in the past as well. Se

ll. Several fake firms had been set u n set up and travel f ravel frauds had been committed. Peti Petitioner was arrested on 27.2.202 .2.2025. During the ng the course of interrogation, he con e confessed to his involvement that h t that he had defraud defrauded several persons on the pret e pretext of travel bookings. He als He also disclosed t osed the names of other accused inc ed including his family members, wh rs, who were involv involved in this racket and got reco t recovered laptop, mobile phones et nes etc. Records we rds were also obtained from various B ious Banks. It further emerges from the st the status report dated 2.12.2025 file by way of ay of affidavit of Dharamvir Singh, ingh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner o ioner of Police, Udy e, Udyog, Gurugram that the wife of ife of petitioner and his father, namel namely, Roshni Trip ni Tripathi and Kumodanand, have be ave been granted the concession of pr of pre- t bail. arrest bail. Petitioner moved an applicatio lication for grant of regular bail befo before learned Ad Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugra urugram. The same was dismissed vid sed vide order dated r dated 23.5.2025. Aggrieved of whic which, present petition has been file en filed for grant of rant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitio petitioner contends that petitioner, wh er, who has been e een engaged in the business of prov f providing Tour and Travel Service ervices, holiday pac ay packages and has been running h ning his business through a registere gistered company u any under the name and style of ‘Fa Fare Fuels Holiday Pvt. Ltd.’, ha , has been falsely falsely implicated in the present case t case. For the purpose of running th ning the business, p ess, petitioner’s company used to de to deal with some local agencies an cies and GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -3- bigger con conglomerates such as MakeMyTr eMyTrip, EasyMyTrip etc. One suc ne such local agen agency with which petitioner fre er frequently dealt was ‘M/s Akb Akbar Travels’. els’. The tickets of all the comp complainants had been booked an ed and communica unicated to them, but somehow, sin w, since petitioner was late in clearin clearing the dues o ues of M/s Akbar Travels, the credi credit facility was denied, resultant ultantly tickets of th ts of the complainants had to be sourc e sourced from somewhere else that to that too at premium emium rate. In this context, complaina plainants/customers were also intimate timated and were q were questioned about their choice as ice as to whether they would continu ontinue with the b the booking by paying additional a onal amount or would opt for gettin getting refund. So d. Some amount was returned to thos to those, who opted for the latter optio r option. Thus, in cr , in crux, submission of learned cou d counsel is that the dispute is pure s purely commercia ercial in nature arising out of allege alleged non-performance of consum nsumer dispute. The second leg of argumen ument raised by learned counsel fo nsel for petitioner i ioner is that in the light of investigatio tigations being complete, as also takin o taking note of the of the fact that the prospect of compl completion of trial in the near future future is quite remo remote, for none of prosecution ution witnesses have been examine amined, petitioner w ioner who was arrested in February, 20 ary, 2025, deserves a lenient view to b w to be taken in hi in his favour, for his (P) further in ther incarceration would not serve an rve any useful purp l purpose as the same would not onl only be violative of his rights und Article 21 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial would also also be against the principle of of “Bail is a general rule an incarcerati eration is an exception”. Further, pe petitioner undertakes to abide by by all the conditio onditions to be imposed by learned tr trial Court. Prayer for allowing petition has has been made. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -4-

4. Per contra, while opposing the the request for grant of bail, learne learned State couns counsel submits that a calculated/sys ed/systematic fraud has been played ayed by petitioner ioner and other accused, who in cons conspiracy with each other caused aused a wrongful loss to the innocent customers, mers, who had spent their hard earne earned money and and booked their holidays pack packages through the firm run petitioner. ioner. Despite taking the necessary cessary fare/travel charges from customers, mers, neither the tickets were booked ooked nor the money was returned. It It is further the the submission of learned State State counsel that petitioner who remained involved in such like offences in in the past as well, does not deserv deserve the relief sought for, for if extended the co concession of bail, likelihood of of his (P) fleeing leeing from the process of justice by by not appearing in the Court an overawing awing complainant and related witnes witnesses are quite high. Dismissal issal of petition is is prayed for.

5. Heard learned counsel for for the parties and perused documents ments on record.

6. It is settled that grant or refus refusal of bail is the discretion of Court. Fac Factors to be kept in mind while while granting the concession of ba have been been discussed by the Hon’ble Supr Supreme Court in several cases. Th The essence bei being that while exercising powers powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Pa Pari materia to to Section 483 of BNSS), the Cou Court has to take into consideratio deration various par para meters including the nature of of the charge, evidence, seriousne iousness and gravity gravity of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if he he is convicted icted, his past antecedents etc. Thus Thus, there can be no straight jack jacket formula for for exercising the discretion and ea each case has to be examined on on its peculiar fac facts. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -5- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sa Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 012) 1 SCC 40, ha had held as under:- “21. In bail applications, g s, generally, it has been laid dow from the earliest times that th at the object of bail is to secure th re the appearance of the accused p ed person at his trial by reasonab amount of bail. The object ject of bail is neither punitive no e nor preventative. Deprivation of n of liberty must be considered red a punishment, unless it can be r be required to ensure that an accuse person will stand his trial wh l when called upon. The courts ow ts owe more than verbal respect to ct to the principle that punishme begins after conviction, and and that every man is deemed to b to be innocent until duly tried and d nd duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, mes, it was appreciated that detentio ention in custody pending completion etion of trial could be a cause of gre f great hardship. From time to time, ime, necessity demands that some u e un- convicted persons should be be held in custody pending trial rial to secure their attendance at the t the trial but in such cases, `necessit essity' is the operative test. In this co is country, it would be quite contra ntrary to the concept of personal libe l liberty enshrined in the Constitutio itution that any person should be pu e punished in respect of any matte atter, upon which, he has not b ot been convicted or that in an n any circumstances, he should be be deprived of his liberty upon on n only the belief that he will tamp amper with the witnesses if left left at liberty, save in the most extrao xtraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question stion of prevention being the object ject of a refusal of bail, one must n st not lose sight of the fact that an at any GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -6- imprisonment before convict nviction has a substantial punitiv nitive content and it would be impr mproper for any Court to refuse ba e bail as a mark of disapproval val of former conduct whether th er the accused has been convicted fo ed for it or not or to refuse bail to a l to an un-convicted person for the p the purpose of giving him a taste ste of imprisonment as a lesson. XXX XXX XXX XXX

46. We are conscious of of the fact that the accused a d are charged with economic offen offences of huge magnitude. We a e are also conscious of the fact tha t that the offences alleged, if prove roved, may jeopardize the economy my of the country. At the same tim time, we cannot lose sight of the f the fact that the investigating agenc has already completed inves nvestigation and the charge sheet eet is already filed before the Sp e Special Judge, CBI, New Delh Delhi. Therefore, their presence in t in the custody may not be necessa essary for further investigation. We a We are of the view that the appellan ellants are entitled to the grant of t of bail pending trial on stringe ingent conditions in order to ally the CBI. the apprehension expressed by CBI

47. In the view we have ta ve taken, it may not be necessary ary to refer and discuss other issues sues canvassed by the learned couns ounsel for the parties and the case l se laws relied on in support of the f their respective contentions. We cl e clarify that we have not expresse ressed any opinion regarding the o the other legal issues canvassed b ed by learned counsel for the parties rties. GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -7-

48. In the result, we order t der that the appellants be released o sed on bail on their executing a bond ond with two solvent sureties, each ach in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the s he satisfaction of the Special Judg Judge, CBI, New Delhi on the followi lowing conditions :- (a) The appellants shall no ll not directly or indirectly make an ke any inducement, threat or promis omise to any person acquainted wi d with the facts or the case so as to d to dissuade him to disclose such fac h facts to the Court or to any other au er authority. (b) They shall remain pres present before the Court on the dat fixed for hearing of the case. I se. If they want to remain absent, the t, then they shall take prior permiss mission of the court and in case ase of unavoidable circumstances f es for remaining absent, they sha immediately give intimation t on to the appropriate court and als d also to the Superintendent, CBI BI and request that they may b ay be permitted to be present throug rough the counsel. (c) case. (d) They will not dispute th te their identity as the accused in th in the They shall surrender th er their passport, if any (if not alread lready surrendered), and in case, th e, they are not a holder of the sam same, they shall swear to an a n affidavit. If they have alread lready surrendered before the Ld. Sp . Special Judge, CBI, that fact shou should also be supported by an affida ffidavit. (e) We reserve liberty to th to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/re on/recalling the order passed by us, us, if GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -8- for any reason, the appellants ants violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court.” In Bihar Fodder Scam case case, Hon’ble Supreme Court aft taking into into consideration the seriousness usness of the charges alleged and maximum mum sentence of imprisonment that that could he imposed including fact that the the appellants were in jail for a period more than six months as as on the date of of passing of the order, was of the the view that the further detention ntion of the appellan ppellants as pre-trial prisoners would ould not serve any purpose. In Dipak Shubhaschandra Mehta v. CBI, 2012(4) SCC 13 134, Hon’ble Su Supreme Court held as under:- “18. The Court granting bai g bail should exercise its discretion tion in a judicious manner and not a not as a matter of course. Though ugh at the stage of granting bail, a l, a detailed examination of evidenc idence and elaborate documentation tion of the merits of the case need n ed not be undertaken, there is a n a need to indicate in such orde orders reasons for prima facie conclu ncluding why bail was being grante anted, particularly, where the ac accused is charged of havin committed a serious offence. nce. The Court granting bail has has to consider, among other circum cumstances, the factors such as a) th a) the nature of accusation and se d severity of punishment in case ase of conviction and the nature ture of supporting evidence; e; b) reasonable apprehension of of tampering with the witness o ess or apprehension of threat to the the complainant and; c) prima fac satisfaction of the court in sup support of the charge. In addition tion to the same, the Court while co e considering a petition for grant ant of bail in a non-bailable offence ence apart from the seriousness of th of the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 -9- offence, likelihood of the ac e accused fleeing from justice an tampering with the prosecutio cution witnesses, have to be noted oted.” (emphasis added). Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Centr entral Bureau of of Investigation, 2023(1) SCC (Cr (Crl.) 1, elaborated upon the facto factors to be kept kept in mind while deciding the bail bail petitions in economic offences an held that that the law laid down in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate Enforceme cement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, will govern the field. In P. Chidambar mbaram’s case (supra), it was held held as under:- “Thus from cumulative perusa rusal of the judgments cited on eith either side including the one render ndered by the Constitution Bench nch of this Court, it could be dedu educed that the basic jurisprudenc relating to bail remains the sa he same inasmuch as the grant of ba of bail is the rule and refusal is the e the exception so as to ensure that th at the accused has the opportunity nity of securing fair trial. Howeve wever, while considering the same me the gravity of the offence is a is an aspect which is required to b to be kept in view by the Court. Th t. The gravity for the said purpose w ose will have to be gathered from th m the facts and circumstances arisin rising in each case. Keeping in vie n view the consequences that would uld befall on the society in cases ses of financial irregularities, it ha t has been held that even econom offences would fall under the the category of “grave offence” an ” and in such circumstance while co le considering the application for ba r bail in such matters, the Court w rt will have to deal with the sam same, being sensitive to the nature ture of allegation made against th st the accused. One of the circumsta mstances to consider the gravity of th of the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 10- -10 offence is also the term of se of sentence that is prescribed for th or the offence the accused is alle alleged to have committed. Suc Such consideration with regard to d to the gravity of offence is a facto factor which is in addition to the t the triple test or the tripod test th st that would be normally applied. I ed. In that regard what is also to b to be kept in perspective is that eve even if the allegation is one of grav economic offence, it is not a r t a rule that bail should be denied ied in every case since there is no no such bar created in the releva levant enactment passed by the the legislature nor does the ba jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlinin lining conclusion is that irrespectiv ective of the nature and gravity ity of charge, the precedent of ano another case alone will not be th be the basis for either grant or refu refusal of bail though it may have ave a bearing on principle. But ultim ultimately the consideration will hav l have to be on case to case basis o sis on the facts involved therein an in and securing the presence of the ac he accused to stand trial.” Recently, a Co-ordinate Ben e Bench of this Court in Neelkam Singh Alia Alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab pa passed in CRM-M-39765-2024 ha 024 has held that a that although an accused may hav y have past criminal antecedents b nts but nonetheless theless if the incarceration period eriod is long, he is entitled for th for the concession ession of bail. “Therefore, to elucidate furth further, this Court is conscious of th of the basic and fundamental princip inciple of law that right to speedy tri y trial is a part of reasonable, fair an ir and just procedure enshrined und Article 21 of the Constitution tion of India. This constitutional rig cannot be denied to the accus ccused as is the mandate of the Ape Apex GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 11- -11 court in “Hussainara Kha Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Hom Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Pa r, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besid esides this, reference can be drawn u wn upon that pre-conviction period iod of the under-trials should be as as short as possible keeping in vie n view the nature of accusation and t nd the severity of punishment in ca n case of conviction and the nature o re of supporting evidence, reasonab apprehension of tampering wi g with the witness or apprehension ion of threat to the complainant. As f . As far as the pendency of other cas and involvement of the petitio etitioner in other cases is concerne erned, reliance can be placed upon th on the order of this Court rendered red in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as d as “Baljinder Singh alias Rock v ck vs. State of Punjab” decided ed on 02.03.2023, wherein, whi referring Article 21 of the Co Constitution of India, this Court ha rt has held that no doubt, at the tim e time of granting bail, the crimin iminal antecedents of the petitioner ner are to be looked into but at th at the same time it is equally true rue that the appreciation of evidenc idence during the course of trial has t has to be looked into with reference nce to the evidence in that case alo e alone and not with respect to th to the evidence in the other pending ding cases. In such eventuality, stri , strict adherence to the rule of denia denial of bail on account of pendenc of other cases/convictions in s in all probability would land th d the petitioner in a situation of den f denial of concession of bail.”

7. Reverting back to the facts of of the case in hand, factual aspec aspects leading to to lodging of registration of FIR ha have already been noticed in para para 2 of this orde order. In view of submissions adv advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, ioner, but without commenting further further on the merits of the case, lest lest it GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 12- -12 may prejud prejudice the trial, taking into conside onsideration the fact that petitioner been in custody since 27.2.2025, inves investigations are complete but prospect of of completion of trial in near fut future is bleak, this Court is of th s of the opinion tha ion that his (P) further incarceration w tion would not only be violative of h e of his rights und s under Article 21 of the Constitution ution of India, including right to speed speedy trial but wo but would also be against the princip rinciple of “Bail is a general rule an le and incarcerati eration is an exception” as held by H d by Hon’ble Supreme Court in as he by Hon’ble on’ble Supreme Court in Dataram am vs. State of Uttar Pradesh an another, 20 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

8. Resultantly, petitioner is grant s granted the concession of bail subje subject to his furn is furnishing bail/surety bonds to t s to the satisfaction of learned tri ed trial Court/Duty t/Duty Magistrate concerned. The The petitioner shall abide by th by the following c wing conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not not tamper with the evidence durin during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will ill not pressurize/ intimidate prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no l not leave the country without prio urt. permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not l not commit an offence similar to th to the offence of which, he is an acc accused, or for commission of whic he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n ll not directly or indirectly coerc oerce, induce, threaten or promise to ise to any person acquainted with th ith the facts of the case so as to dissu dissuade him/her from disclosing suc g such facts to the Court or to any any police officer or tamper with th h the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not berty. not in any manner misuse his liberty (vii) The petitioner shall f ll furnish his address and mobi number to the Trial Court fo rt forthwith and shall not change th ge the GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -61762-2025 13- -13 same till the conclusion of the f the trial and in case for any reaso eason, the petitioner seeks to chang ange any of the aforesaid, the sam shall be done only with prio prior intimation to the learned Tri Trial Court, stating the reason for th for the same. (viii) The petitioner will appe appear before the trial Court on eac n each and every date fixed, unless i ess is exempted by a specific order der of Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty M ty Magistrate may impose any oth condition, as deemed app g appropriate while releasing petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the present petiti t petition is allowed and it is made cle that in case in case there is any breach of the afore e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b shall be at liberty t erty to seek cancellation of bail as ail as granted to the petitioner by th by this order.

10. In view of the above, it is cla t is clarified that the observations mad ns made herein are l n are limited for the purpose of prese f present proceedings and would not b d not be construed a trued as an opinion on the merits of the s of the case and the trial would procee proceed independen endently of the aforesaid observations ations. .2026

16.03.2026 (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) NEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document