Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail to Accused in Multi-Victim Investment Fraud Case After Nearly Five Years of Custody; Holds Prolonged Incarceration Pending Trial Unjustified

Case Name: Kuldeep Singh Maan alias Kuldeep Maan v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: CRM-M-65124-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the third petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust in connection with a large-scale investment fraud. The Court held that continued incarceration of the petitioner for nearly five years as an undertrial, despite substantial progress in the prosecution evidence and in the absence of any material suggesting misuse of liberty or likelihood of absconding, was not warranted. The Court further held that involvement of the petitioner in other criminal cases could not, by itself, be a sufficient ground to deny bail when the facts of the present case otherwise justified grant of relief.

Summary: The petitioner was booked in an FIR registered at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, along with allied provisions including Section 120-B IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013. The allegations stemmed from complaints that the petitioner and other co-accused, associated with a company engaged in agricultural land development, induced members of the public to invest money by making assurances of high returns, commissions, and interest. It was alleged that multiple investors deposited substantial sums, but no returns were paid and the company eventually shut down its office, leading to allegations of cheating and intimidation.

The petitioner was arrested in December 2020 and had remained in continuous custody since then. The challan was presented in May 2021. During the course of trial, a total of sixty-nine prosecution witnesses were cited, out of which fifty-seven had already been examined by the time the present petition was considered. The petitioner contended that the dispute was essentially the result of business failure, that there was no initial intent to cheat, and that the maximum sentence prescribed for the offences alleged was seven years, which was approaching the period already spent in custody.

The State opposed the bail plea on the ground of seriousness of allegations, multiplicity of victims, and the petitioner’s involvement in other FIRs and proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court, however, noted that the trial had not concluded despite earlier directions for expeditious disposal and that the delay could not be attributed to the petitioner. The Court relied upon settled principles that successive bail petitions are maintainable upon a substantial change in circumstances and that prolonged pre-trial detention militates against the right to personal liberty.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. The Court imposed conditions restraining misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, delaying the trial, or committing any offence while on bail, and directed deposit of the petitioner’s passport and disclosure of his contact details to the investigating agency. It was clarified that any breach of conditions would entitle the State to seek cancellation of bail and that observations made in the order would not influence the merits of the trial.