Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surya Akant Jha vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2026
CRM-M--61762-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
110A CRM-M-61762-2025
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026
Suryakant Jha
...Petitioner.
v.
State of Haryana
...Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shweta Nahata, DAG, Haryana.
****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner, who is an accused in case FIR No. 290 dated 11.12.202 .2024,, registered against him under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 111(1)(iii), 3(5) of BNS BNS, at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurugram, Gurugram, has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail.
2. In nutshell, the allegation llegation against the petitioner is that he in criminal conspiracy with other accused, committed calculated fraud upon innocent persons including the complainant by falsely representing them regarding their airfare bookings and holiday packages. Money was collected from victims with the promise to provide legitimate travel service. However, funds unds received from them were diverted for some other purposes. Thus, victims were deprived of their hard earned money. Modus operandi 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 and other accused was that they used to issue dummy tickets to the persons desirous of going abroad. The tickets were cancelled by the Airlines Company on account of non-payment non payment of travel fare. It is further the allegation against petitioner that that several such like frauds had been committed by him in the past as well. Several fake firms had been set up and travel frauds had been committed. Petitioner was arrested on 27.2.2025.
27.2.2025 During the course of interrogation, he confessed to his involveme involvement nt that he had defrauded several persons on the pretext of travel bookings. He also disclosed the names of other accused including his family members, who were involved in this racket and got recovered laptop, mobile phones etc. Records were also obtained obtained from various Banks.
It further emerges from the status report dated 2.12.2025 filed by way of affidavit of Dharamvir Singh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Udyog, Gurugram that the wife of petitioner and his father father,, namely, Roshni Tripathi and Kumodanand, have been granted the concession of pre-
pre arrest bail.
Petitioner moved an application for grant of regular bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram Gurugram.. The same was dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2025. Aggrieved of which which, presentt petition has been filed for grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner, who has been engaged in the business of providing Tour and Travel Services, holiday packages and has been running his business through a registered registere company under the name and style of 'Fare Fare Fuels Holiday Pvt. Ltd.',, has been falsely implicated in the present case. For the purpose of running the business, petitioner's company used to deal with some local agencies and GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.03.23 19:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M--61762-2025 -3- bigger conglomerates such as MakeMyTrip eMyTrip, EasyMyTrip etc. One such local agency with which petitioner frequently deal dealt was 'M/s Akbar Travels'. The tickets of all the complainants had been booked and communicated to them, but somehow, since petitioner was late in clearing the dues of M/s Akbar Travels, the credit facility was denied, resultantly tickets of the complainants complainant had ad to be sourced from somewhere else that too at premium rate. In this context, complainants/customers were also intimated and were questioned about their choice as to whether they would continue with the booking by paying additional amount or would opt fo forr getting refund. Some amount was returned to those, who opted for the latter option.
option Thus, in crux, submission of learned counsel is that the dispute is purely commercial in nature arising out of alleged non non-performance performance of consumer dispute.
The second nd leg of argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that in the light of investigations being complete, as also taking note of the fact that the prospect of completion of trial in the near future is quite remote, for none of prosecution witnesse witnessess have been examined, petitioner who was arrested in February, 2025, deserves a lenient view to be taken in his favour, for his (P) further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose as the same would not only be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial but would also be against the principle of "Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception". Further, petitioner undertakes to abide by all the conditions to be imposed by learned trial Court. Prayer for allowing the petition 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 request for grant of bail, learned State counsel submits that a calculated/systematic fraud has been played by petitioner and other accused, who in conspiracy with each other caused a wrongful loss to the innocent customers, who had spent their hard earned money and booked their holidays packages through the firm run by petitioner. Despite taking the necessary fare/travel charges from the customers, neither the tickets were booked nor the money was returned. It is further the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner who has remained involved in such like offences in the past as well, does not deserve the relief sought for, for if extended the concession of bail, likelihood of his (P) fleeing from the process of justice by not appearing in the Court and overawing complainant and related witnesses are quite high. Dismissal of petition is prayed for.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
6. It is settled that grant or refusal of bail is the discretion of the Court. Factors to be kept in mind while granting the concession of bail have been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. The essence being that while exercising powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Pari Pari materia to Section 483 of BNSS), the Court has to take into consideration various para meters including the nature of the charge, evidence, seriousness and gravity of offence, punishments to be awarded to a person, if he is convicted his past antecedents etc. Thus, there can be no straight jacket convicted, formula for exercising the discretion and each case has to be examined on its peculiar 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 Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, had held as under:-
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.
22. From 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- un convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their eir 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 that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that 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 conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former co conduct nduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
XXX XXX XXX
46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic mic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed invest investigation igation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pendin pendingg trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.
47. In the view we have taken, it may not be necessary to refer and discuss other issues canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and the case laws relied on in su support pport of their respective contentions. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the other legal issues canvassed by learned counsel for the parties.
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 that the appellants be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs.5 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi on the following conditions ::-
(a) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(b) They shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel.
(c) They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case.
(d) They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.
(e) We reserve liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order passed by 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 violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court."
In Bihar Fodder Scam case, Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could he imposed including the fact that the appellants were in jail for a period more than six months as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pre-trial prisoners would not serve any purpose.
In Dipak Shubhaschandra Mehta v. CBI, 2012(4) SCC 134, 134 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"18. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of eevidence vidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. The Court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as a) the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and; c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In addition to the same, the Court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable bailable offence apart from the seriousness 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 hood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be noted."
noted.
(emphasis added).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023(1) SCC (Crl.) 1, elaborated upon the factors factor to be kept in mind while deciding the bail petitions in economic offences and held that the law laid down in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, will govern the field. In P. Chidambaram's case (supra), it was held as under:-
"Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for thee said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under nder the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstan circumstances ces to consider the gravity 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 sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple tes testt or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis sis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
trial."
Recently, a Co-ordinate ordinate Bench of this Court in Neelkamal Singh Alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab passed in CRM CRM-M-39765-2024 2024 has held that although an accused may have past criminal antecedents but nonetheless if the incarceration period is long, he is entitled for the concession of bail.
"Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the 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 Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home
98.. Besides Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98 this, reference can be drawn upon that pre pre-conviction conviction period of the under-trials als should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
omplainant. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 2022 titled as "
"Baljinder Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided ided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denia deniall of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of concession of bail."
7. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, factual aspects leading to lodging of registration of FIR have already been noticed in para 2 of this order. In view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, but without commenting further on the merits of the case, 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 prejudice the trial, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has been in custody since 27.2.2025, investigations are complete but the prospect of completion of trial in near future is bleak, this Court is of the opinion that his (P) further incarceration would not only be violative of his rights under under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy trial but would also be against the principle of ""Bail Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception"
exception" as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dataram am vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.
8. Resultantly, petitioner is granted the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-
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 shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial 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 wit withh 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 to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change 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 trial and iin n case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
(viii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is made cclear lear 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.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
16.03.2026 JUDGE
gbs
Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
GURBACHAN SINGH
2026.03.23 19:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document