Mohit Sharma vs State Of Haryana & Anr.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed the present second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 320 dated 30.07.2024, registered under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 IPC (corresponding to Sections 61(2), 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonipat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in the present case was registered by alleging that the accused had induced the complainant to invest the money in the company for the higher returns. Learned counsel further submits that, in fact, there were financial transactions between the parties, which is apparent from a memorandum of understanding dated 28^th February 2025 (Annexure P-2) between the parties. Thus, the FIR in the present case was got registered by the complainant by twisting the facts, and a civil dispute has been wrongly converted into a criminal offence. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 25.09. 2025 and is in custody for the last more than 01 year and 01 month. After completion of investigation, the challan has already been presented against him. The prosecution has relied upon 22 witnesses, but only two witnesses have been examined so far, and the completion of trial may take quite a long time. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused, Subhash Saini, has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-3). Another co-accused, Sandeep Goel, has also been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, on 10^th March 2026. Since, all the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and also the fact that only 02 witnesses out of 22 witnesses have been examined so far, there are no chances of early conclusion of the trial.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of regular bail. He further submits that three more cases of similar nature have been registered against the petitioner in the past and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully.

Even though, 03 more FIR’s have been registered against the petitioner, but in the present case, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P., and another 2020(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 831 that petitioner can never be confined in jail for an indefinite period as the pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot be the basis to refuse the prayer of bail. Similar observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586. Apparently, all the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate and only 02 witnesses out of 22 witnesses have been examined so far. Thus, the trial Court may take considerable time in concluding the trial in the present case and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned subject to the following conditions:-