Naveen Kumar @ Naveen Yadav vs State Of Haryana

128128128128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH Naveen Kumar @ Naveen YadavNaveen Kumar @ Naveen Yadav ….Petitioner….Petitioner Versus State of HaryanaHaryana …Respondent…Respondent Date ofDate of DecisionDate ofDate ofDecisionDecisionDecisionDecision:DecisionDecisionDecision:: August 12:August 12August 12,August 12,, 2026,202620262026 Date of Uploading:Date of Uploading:Date of Uploading:Date of Uploading: August 12Date of Uploading:Date of Uploading:Date of Uploading:Date of Uploading:August 12August 12, 2026August 12, 2026, 2026, 2026 CORAM:CORAM:CORAM:CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:Present:-Present:Present: Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Senior AdvocateAdvocate with Ms. Suyma, Advocate and Mr. Harshveer Sohal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. ******************** SUMEET GOELSUMEET GOELSUMEET GOELSUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)SUMEET GOELSUMEET GOELSUMEET GOELSUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL), J. (ORAL), J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Sectionhas been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS,483 of the BNSS, 2023 seekingseeking grant of regular bail to the petitionergrant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.23 dateddated 12.08.2025, registered under Sections, registered under Sections 166, 167, 201, 218, 406, 409, 420,166, 167, 201, 218, 406, 409, 420,166, 167, 201, 218, 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120471, 120-B of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 2and Sections 2(i), 7, 13(1)(a) & 13(2), 7, 13(1)(a) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Prevention ofof the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Prevention ofof the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Prevention ofof the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, at Police Station AntiCorruption Act, 2018, at Police Station AntiCorruption Act, 2018, at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Faridabad,Corruption Bureau, Faridabad, District Faridabad.District Faridabad.

As per prosecution case, the petitionerthe petitioner and his co-accusedaccused embezzled an amount oan amount of about Rs.12 crores..

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 15.04.2026. Learned senior counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned senior counsel has urged that the case in hand is primarily based on documentary evidence. Learned senior counsel has further urged that challan (upon culmination of investigation) already stands filed. Learned senior counsel has argued that the petitioner was merely working as a Resident Senior Auditor and was doing his job diligently. Learned senior counsel has iterated that the petitioner is not in a position to interfere with prosecution evidence. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that conclusion of trial will take long. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been argued that the case in hand involves defalcation of about `12 crores. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in the offence in question and thus, he ought not be extended the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 20.07.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

The petitioner was arrested on 15.04.2026, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua the petitioner stands presented on 10.06.2026. Total 19 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is the conceded case before this Court that none has been examined till date. It is also not in dispute before this Court that requisite sanction has not been received from the competent authority. Keeping in view the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially that the factum of the offence in question pertain to the year 2018 whereas the FIR in question was registered in 2025, the prosecution evidence being primarily documentary in nature, challan (upon culmination of investigation) has also been filed and the likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future is bleak; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the present instant bail plea. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

As per custody certificate dated 20.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 03 months and 06 days.

Further, as per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State ofMaulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P.Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State ofMaulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State ofU.P.U.P.U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2)Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2)Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2)Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477RCR (Criminal) 477RCR (Criminal) 477RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of HAkhilesh Singh v. State of HaryanaAkhilesh Singh v. State of HAkhilesh Singh v. State of Haryanaaryanaaryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In view of above, the present petition is allowedallowedallowed. Petitioner isallowed ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed off. ((SUMEET GOEL((SUMEET GOELSUMEET GOEL)SUMEET GOEL))) JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE August 12August 12, 2026August 12August 12, 2026, 2026, 2026