Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail in ₹28 Lakh Investment Fraud Case; Holds Continued Custody Unnecessary After Filing of Challan
Case Name: Rupinder Singh v. State of Haryana
Date of Decision: 23 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-2933-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition for regular bail and held that continued incarceration is not justified once investigation is complete, challan has been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, particularly when there is no material to suggest that the accused is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence. The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that pendency of other cases by itself is not a sufficient ground to deny bail.
Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No. 88 dated 24.06.2025 registered at Police Station Barara, District Ambala, for offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 506 IPC. The prosecution case was that the complainant, whose husband was working abroad, sold her residential house in July 2020 for ₹29.80 lakhs and was later induced by the petitioner and his mother to invest money in an alleged finance business on the assurance of monthly interest at the rate of 2%.
It was alleged that between August 2022 and September 2023, the complainant paid various amounts in cash and through bank transfers, totalling ₹28,24,600/-, on the promise that the invested amount would be doubled within 18 months. When payments stopped, the petitioner allegedly issued three cheques amounting to ₹24 lakhs, which were dishonoured, leading to registration of the FIR.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that he had merely facilitated investments, and that the dispute was essentially civil in nature. It was argued that the petitioner had been in custody since 22.09.2025, investigation was complete, challan had already been presented on 17.11.2025, and none of the ten cited prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating that the trial would take long.
The State opposed the bail plea on the ground of seriousness of allegations and submitted that the petitioner was involved in three other criminal cases. The High Court, while noting the custody certificate, held that mere involvement in other cases cannot, by itself, justify denial of bail when a case for bail is otherwise made out on facts.
Relying upon settled principles laid down in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi) and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the Court observed that deprivation of liberty before conviction must be justified by compelling necessity. In the absence of any tangible material suggesting likelihood of absconding, influencing witnesses, or tampering with evidence, further detention was held to be unwarranted.
Decision: The petition was allowed.The petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.