STATE OF HARYANA vs Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate,

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Saroha, DAG, Haryana. Mr. B.S.Saroha, DAG, Haryana. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. the present petition filed under Section 483 of Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of 2023 read with Section 439 Cr.P.C., is for grant of regular bail to 2023 read with Section 439 Cr.P.C., is BNSS, 2023 read with Section 439 Cr.P.C., is 607 dated 04.12.2017, registered at Police the petitioner in case FIR No.607 dated 04.12.2017, registered at Police the petitioner in case FIR No. Station Ballabgarh Sadar, District Faridabad, under Sections 420 and 406 Station Ballabgarh Sadar, District Faridabad, under Sections Station Ballabgarh Sadar, District Faridabad, under Sections IPC.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 3 months and 17 days. He alleges false implication. custody for . He alleges false implication. There is no evidence qua involvement of the petitioner in the chit fund scheme. All no evidence qua involvement of the petitioner in the chit fund no evidence qua involvement of the petitioner in the chit fund other six co-accused have since been granted bail. other six co accused have since been granted bail. It is a case of Charges have been framed on 26.02.2026, however none magisterial trial. Charges have been framed on 26.02.2026, however none magisterial out of 14 PWs has been examined. He is involved in 4 more cases with PWs has been examined. He is involved in 4 more cases with regard to same transactions wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on regard to same transactions wherein he is regard to same transactions wherein he is PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.11 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having cheated the villagers in chit fund schemes. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner being on bail in other cases and the co-accused having been released on bail.

5. Heard. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.”

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 months and 17 days; on bail in other cases; the co-accused are on bail; charges stand framed on 26.02.2026; prosecution evidence has to commence; in all there are 34 PWs; the trial PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.11 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed.

7. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.11 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

8. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

9. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.11 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.