Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Singh Alias Parminder Bhatia vs State Of Punjab on 30 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-73779-2025 (O&M) -1-
138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-73779-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision : 30.03.2026
Parminder Singh @ Parminder Bhatia .....Petitioner
versus
The State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Ms. Deepika Verma, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjeev K. Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Present fourth petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.163 dated 27.10.2019, under Sections 420, 406 of IPC, 1860 and Section 4/5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulations Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, registered at Police Station Satnampura, Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that Parminder Singh @ Parminder Bhatia (present petitioner) and his co-accused, who are non- applicants i.e. Charanjit Singh and Tarsem Singh got registered a Firm under the name and style of Guru Nanak Task Enterprises at Prime Tower Hadiabad Road, Satnampura, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, as a finance company, but they under the pretext of running a finance company, started lucky draw schemes. They, from its members, collected a sum of Rs.1000/- per month and first scheme was for 13 months and second scheme was for 15 months. Thereafter, the prizes were distributed to the winners by putting draw and holding functions. They started that business without necessary sanction from the State Government. They also put the draws of luxury MAMTA 2026.03.30 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73779-2025 (O&M) -2- vehicles and got distributed some draws to the winners, but that were not distributed to the most of the winners. Accordingly, they cheated the innocent persons to the worth of crores to them. Thus, request was made to take legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 18.10.2024. He approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala praying for grant of bail, however, after hearing counsel for the parties and finding no merits, the same was declined vide order dated 08.12.2025. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner earlier approached this Court twice by way of filing CRM-M- 11673-2024, CRM-M-44557-2024 and CRM-M-6918-2025, however, the same were dismissed vide orders dated 18.05.2024, 07.11.2025 and 27.10.2025, respectively. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present fourth petition.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 18.10.2024. She has contended that the allegations as made in the FIR that the petitioner along with co- accused has registered a firm namely, M/s Guru Nanak Task Enterprises at Prime Tower and collected Rs.1000/- per month from every member and there were 2000 members enrolled. She has contended that the petitioner was merely a partner in the firm and not directly concerned with the collection of the amount. She has contended that the petitioner is behind the bars from last about 2½ years but there is no material progress in the trial. To buttress her arguments, she has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case of the similar nature. She has submitted that it is a magisterial trial and the petitioner deserves to be granted the concession of regular bail.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions MAMTA 2026.03.30 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73779-2025 (O&M) -3- made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that petitioner was involved along with co-accused. He has submitted that they in collusion with each other have opened a firm which is in violation under the Prize Chits and Money Circulations Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. He has submitted that the offence has resulted in financial loss to the Nation. He has submitted that the complicity of the petitioner was surfaced during investigation. He, on instructions, has submitted that out of 24 prosecution witnesses, only 04 witnesses have been examined. He has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are pertaining to registering a firm namely, M/s Guru Nanak Task Enterprises at Prime Tower along with the co-accused. The scheme was floated in violation of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. Co-accused of the petitioner has been granted the default bail. Admittedly, it is a magisterial trial. Custody certificate shows that the petitioner has undergone the incarceration of 02 years, 05 months and 11 days as on 29.03.2026. It further reflects that though the petitioner is involved in one more case, however, he is on bail. As submitted, out of 24 prosecution witnesses, 04 witnesses have been examined. Needless to say that every accused has the fundamental right of speedy trial.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. National Investigation Agency, 2022(1) SCC 695 has held as under:
"Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period MAMTA 2026.03.30 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-73779-2025 (O&M) -4- may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. At the same time, timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated 03.07.2024 in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, has held that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has the right to speedy trial under the Constitution of India.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
CRM-7677-2026 Prayer in the present application is for grant of interim bail to the petitioner on medical grounds.
In view of the averments made in the application, the same has become infructuous as the main case has been decided today.
In view of the above, the present application is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
30.03.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
m.sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
MAMTA Whether reportable : Yes/No
2026.03.30 18:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document