Ashwin Sharma v. State of Haryana

o o o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoATo CHANDIGARHo o o o o o o o o 206o o o o o o ooCRM-M-10933-2026oo o o o ooDateoofodecision:oo13.03.2026o o o o Dateoofouploading:oo13.03.2026o o o AshwinoSharmao o o o ....Petitionerooo o V/so o StateoofoHaryanaoo o o o o o ....Respondento o o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSUMEEToGOELo o Present:oo Mr.oAnkitoChauhan,oAdvocateoforotheopetitioner.o o o o o Mr.oGurmeetoSingh,oAAG,oHaryana.o o o oo *****o SUMEEToGOEL,oJ.o(ORAL)oo o

1.o o PresentopetitionohasobeenofiledounderoSectiono483oofoBNSSo 2023oforograntooforegularobailotootheopetitioneroinocaseobearingoFIRoNo.211o datedo 05.08.2024o registeredo foro theo offenceso punishableo undero Sectionso 420,o 467,o 468,o471,o 120-Boofo IPC,o ato Policeo Stationo Sector-53,oDistricto Gurugram.o

2.oo o TheogravamenoofotheoFIRoreflectsothatotheoinstantoFIRohasobeeno registeredoonotheobasisoofoaocomplaintomadeobyotheocomplainant-company,o M/soLuxuryoRideoGlobaloPvt.oLtd.,owhichoisoengagedoinotheobusinessoofo buyingo ando sellingo pre-ownedo luxuryo vehicleso byo statingo thato ito waso allegedlyocheatedobyotheopetitionerothroughoaofraudulentotransactionorelatingo CRM-M-10933-2026o o P a g e o|o2o o o tooaoluxuryocar.ooItoisoallegedothatoinoJanuaryo2024,otheopetitioneroapproachedo theo complainanto companyo througho ano onlineo inquiryo expressingo hiso intentiono too sello ao Jaguaro Lando Rovero F-Pace.o Theo petitionero allegedlyo representedohimselfotoobeotheocousinoofotheoregisteredoowneroofotheosaido vehicle.o Aftero inspectiono ando negotiations,o theo complainanto companyo agreedo too purchaseo theo vehicleo foro ao totalo saleo considerationo ofo Rs.o 48,20,000/-.o o Outo ofo theo saido amount,o ao sumo ofo Rs.o 46,00,000/-o waso transferredotootheobankoaccountoofoM/soGeetanshioSteeloIndustriesoonotheo assuranceoofotheopetitionerothatotheooriginaloRegistrationoCertificateo(RC)o ando Noo Objectiono Certificateo (NOC)o fromo Banko ofo Barodao wouldo beo providedoshortly.oItoisoallegedothatoaocopyoofoanoNOCowasosharedowithotheo complainantoandopossessionoofotheovehicleowasohandedooverotoothemoono

12.01.2024.o However,o accordingo too theo complainant,o despiteo repeatedo requests,otheooriginaloRCoandoNOCowereonotoprovided.oTheocomplainanto wasoallegedlyoaskedotoocoordinateowithocertainoagentsopurportedlyoworkingo atotheoAhmedabadoRTOoforocompletionoofotheotransferoformalities.oItoiso furtheroallegedothatotheocomplainantopaidoadditionaloamountsotowardsotaxeso andocommissionotoofacilitateotheotransferoofotheovehicle,obutotheoregistrationo wasoneverotransferred.ooTheocomplainantolateroallegedlyodiscoveredothatotheo registeredo ownero ofo theo vehicleo hado alreadyo expired,o theo NOCo suppliedo earlierowasoforged,oandothatothereowasoanooutstandingoloanoofoapproximatelyo Rs.o 70o lakhso ono theo vehicle.o Duringo theo courseo ofo investigation,o ito waso allegedlyofoundothatotheobankoaccountoofoM/soGeetanshioSteeloIndustries,otoo whichotheopaymentoofoRs.o46,00,000/-owasomade,owasolinkedotooco-accusedo Dharmenderoandowasoalsooallegedlyoconnectedotootheopetitioner'sowife.oIto CRM-M-10933-2026o o P a g e o|o3o o o wasofurtherorevealedothatotheosaidoamountowasosubsequentlyotransferredotoo severalootheroaccounts.oOnotheobasisoofotheseoallegations,otheopresentoFIRo cameotoobeoregisteredoallegingothatotheopetitioner,oinoconnivanceowithohiso co-accused,o dishonestlyo inducedo theo complainanto companyo too parto witho moneyoandotherebyocausedoaowrongfulolossoamountingotooRs.o51,62,536/-otoo theocomplainant.o

3.o o Learnedo counselo appearingo foro theo petitionero haso submittedo thato theo petitionero iso ino custodyo sinceo 16.05.2025.o o Learnedo counselo appearingoforotheopetitionerohasofurtherosubmittedotheopetitionerohasobeeno falselyoimplicatedointootheoFIRoinoquestion.ooLearnedocounseloappearingoforo theopetitionerohasofurtheroarguedothatotheoFIRoinoquestionoessentiallyohaso civilo overtoneso ando ito relateso too sale/purchaseo ofo Jaguaro car.o o Learnedo counseloappearingoforotheopetitionerohasofurtherosubmittedothatotheopetitionero iso ao youngo mano agedo 35o years.o o Learnedo counselo appearingo foro theo petitionerohasofurtherosubmittedothatotheotrialoemanatingofromotheoFIRoino questionoisomagisterialooneo&otheopetitioneroisoinocustodyoforotheolasto9o months.ooThus,oregularobailoisoprayedofor.oo

4.o o Learnedo Stateo counselo opposedo theo granto ofo bailo too theo petitionerobyoarguingothatotheoallegationsoraisedoareoseriousoinonatureoand,o thus,o theo petitionero doeso noto deserveo theo concessiono ofo regularo bail.oo Learnedo Stateo counselo seekso too placeo ono recordo custodyo certificateo datedo

12.03.2026oinoCourt,owhichoisotakenoonorecord.oo

5.o o Iohaveoheardocounseloforotheopartiesoandohaveogoneothroughotheo CRM-M-10933-2026 P a g e | 4

o

5.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: "10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom-by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

¶11We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

¶12A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No CRM-M-10933-2026 P a g e | 5

o seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution."

5.2. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as under:- "Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end."

5.3. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶22From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief CRM-M-10933-2026o o P a g e o|o6o o o thatoheowillotamperowithotheowitnessesoifoleftoatoliberty,osaveoinotheomosto extraordinaryocircumstances."oo

6.o o Theo petitionero waso arrestedo ono 16.05.2025o whereinaftero investigationowasocarriedooutoandochallanowasopresentedoono14.08.2025.oo Totalo18oprosecutionohaveobeenocitedoandoitoisotheoconcededopositionobeforeo thisoCourtothatononeoofotheoprosecutionowitnessesohasobeenoexaminedotillo date.oItoisonotoinodisputeothatoconclusionoofotrialowillotakeolongotime.oTheo petitioneroisoaoyoungomanoagedo35oyearsoandonoousefulopurposeowouldobeo servedo byo keepingo theo petitionero ino furthero detention.o o Ito iso alsoo noto ino disputeobeforeothisoCourtothatotrialoemanatingofromotheoFIRoinoquestionoisoao Magisterialoone.oAtothisojuncture,oitowouldobeoappositeotooreferohereinotootheo dictaopassedobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoJavedoGulamoNabioShaikhovs.o StateoofoMaharashtraoandoanother,o2024(3)oRCRo(Criminal)o494,orelevanto whereoforeadsothus:o o "18.oCriminalsoareonotobornooutobutomade.oTheohumano potentialoinoeveryoneoisogoodoandoso,oneverowriteooffoanyocriminalo asobeyondoredemption.oThisohumanistofundamentaloisooftenomissedo whenodealingowithodelinquents,ojuvenileoandoadult.oIndeed,oeveryo sainto haso ao pasto ando everyo sinnero ao future.o Wheno ao crimeo iso committed,o ao varietyo ofo factorso iso responsibleo foro makingo theo offendero commito theo crime.o Thoseo factorso mayo beo socialo ando economic,omayobe,otheoresultoofovalueoerosionooroparentaloneglect;o mayo be,o becauseo ofo theo stresso ofo circumstances,o oro theo manifestationoofotemptationsoinoaomilieuoofoaffluenceocontrastedo withoindigenceoorootheroprivations.oo o 19.oIfotheoStateooroanyoprosecutingoagencyoincludingotheo courtoconcernedohasonoowherewithalotooprovideooroprotectotheo fundamentalo righto ofo ano accusedo too haveo ao speedyo trialo aso enshrinedounderoArticleo21oofotheoConstitutionothenotheoStateooro anyootheroprosecutingoagencyoshouldonotoopposeotheopleaoforobailo onotheogroundothatotheocrimeocommittedoisoserious.oArticleo21oofo theoConstitutionoappliesoirrespectiveoofotheonatureoofotheocrime."o CRM-M-10933-2026o o P a g e o|o7o o o o o Theorivalocontentionsoofotheolearnedocounseloforotheoparties;oaso tootheowhetherotheopetitionerohasobeenofalselyoimplicatedointootheoFIR,oshallo beo goneo intoo duringo theo courseo ofo trial.o o Thiso Courto doeso noto deemo ito appropriateotoodelveodeepointootheseorivalocontentions,oatothisostageolestoito mayoprejudiceotheorightsoofoeitheroofotheoparties.ooNothingotangibleohasobeeno broughto forwardo too indicateo theo likelihoodo ofo theo petitionero abscondingo fromotheoprocessoofojusticeoorointerferingowithotheoremainingoprosecutiono evidence.ooo

7.o o Asoperotheocustodyocertificateodatedo12.03.2026ofiledobyotheo learnedoStateocounsel,otheopetitionerohasosufferedoincarcerationoforo9omonthso &o 26o dayso ando iso statedo too beo involvedo ino fouro othero FIRs/criminalo complaint(s).ooHowever,othisofactumocannotobeoaogroundosufficientobyoitself,o toodeclineotheoconcessionooforegularobailotootheopetitioneroinotheoFIRoino questionowhenoaocaseoisomadeooutoforograntooforegularobailoquaotheoFIRoino questiono byo ratiocinatingo upono theo facts/circumstanceso ofo theo saido FIR.o RelianceoinothisoregardocanobeoplacedouponotheojudgmentoofotheoHon'bleo SupremeoCourtoinoMaulanaoMohd.oAmiroRashadiov.oStateoofoU.P.oando another,o2012o(1)oRCRo(Criminal)o586;oaoDivisionoBenchojudgmentoofotheo Hon'bleoCalcuttaoHighoCourtoinocaseoofoSridharoDasov.oState,o1998o(2)o RCRo(Criminal)o477o&ojudgmentsoofothisoCourtoinoCRM-MoNo.38822-2022otitledoasoAkhileshoSinghov.oStateoofoHaryana,odecidedoono29.11.2021,o andoBalrajov.oStateoofoHaryana,o1998o(3)oRCRo(Criminal)o191.o o o Sufficeotoosay,otheofurtherodetentionoofotheopetitioneroinocustodyo isonotorequiredoinotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheocase.ooo CRM-M-10933-2026 P a g e | 8

o

¶8In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned 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:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

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

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

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

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

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone 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.

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

¶9In 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 cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶10Ordered accordingly.

¶11Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression CRM-M-10933-2026 P a g e | 9

o

¶12Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE March 13, 2026 )aveen Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No