Harsh Yadav v. State of Haryana

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

¶1Present third petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.105 dated 31.3.2025 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3 of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, registered at Police Station Model Town, Rewari, District Rewari.

¶2The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- 'Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR has come came into being on a joint complaint filed by several complainants, namely Sandeep Kumar and others, who have alleged that Ved Parkash, Randhir Chauhan,

CRM-M No.24760 of 2026 -2-

Jai Singh Chauhan, Yashvir, Sudhir Kumar and Harsh Yadav etc. were trading in the name of a company, namely 'Oneness For Investment In Commercial Enterprises and Management LLC', registered in Dubai. According to complainant, the above-named accused, in connivance conspiracy with other accused, got invested money complainants/investors in the above-mentioned company and later on refused to return the same. It has also been complained by the above-named complainants that when request for return of money was raised by the complainants, the accused started threatening the complainants, and thereafter, absconded with all the invested money. It has been further alleged by the complainant that out of invested money about Rs.12,00,00,000/- were paid through bank transactions and Rs.25,00,00,000/- in cash. As per complainant the accused Ved Parkash under a conspiracy with other co-accused Harsh Yadav and Mohit Sharma have cheated bona fide depositors. On receipt of above-mentioned complaint the 'Economic Crime Wing' of Panipat Police was assigned the duty to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. In view of above initial enquiry was carried out by Sub Inspector Satpal Singh, who joined several complainants in the enquiry and recorded their statements. However, the accused did not join the enquiry. Rather he was found missing. According to prosecution on the analysis of statement of above-named complainant, and the material collected by the enquiry officer, it was reported by the above-named enquiry officer that accused Ved Parkash had started a company in the name of 'Oneness For Investment In Commercial Enterprises & Management LLC' in Dubai and trapped various persons to invest on the false pretext of profit at the rate of 9% to 10%. As per report the petitioner made tempting promises to the investors of Dubai visit and got deposited money in USDT (US dollar tether), in his own account as well as in the account of his wife Omwati and son Harsh. It has also been reported by the above-said enquiry officer that under a well planned scheme, by adopting the above-mentioned modus operandi, various investors have been cheated and the quantum of such amount is to the extent of Rs.37,00,00,000/- (in total).'

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 25.8.2025. Learned counsel has further argued the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question primarily

CRM-M No.24760 of 2026 -3-

on account of his father-Ved Parkash being Director of the company in question. Learned counsel has further urged that, upon culmination of investigation, challan already stands presented and conclusion of trial will take long. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 10 months qua the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is involved in another case but the said FIR also emanates from the company in question in the present case. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

¶4Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 17.7.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

4.1 Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and in case he is granted the concession of bail, there is all the likelihood of the petitioner to flee from the hands of justice and interfering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is involved in other FIR(s) as well. On the strength of these allegations, he has opposed the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

¶6Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as

CRM-M No.24760 of 2026 -4-

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 seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on

CRM-M No.24760 of 2026 -5-

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."

6.1. 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."

6.2. 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 No.24760 of 2026 -6-

that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."

¶7The petitioner was arrested on 25.8.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 16.10.2025 and subsequently filed. Total 29 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none have been examined till date. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

7.1 As per custody certificate dated 17.7.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 10 months and 23 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more FIR. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)

CRM-M No.24760 of 2026 -7-

586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

¶8Indubitably, the present petition is the 3rd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.1.2026. The second bail petition was withdrawn on 12.2.2026. However, keeping in view further incarceration of the petitioner and pace of the trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: "10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.

IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such

CRM-M No.24760 of 2026 -8-

an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).

V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed."

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶9In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. 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.

¶10In 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

CRM-M No.24760 of 2026 -9-

State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶11Ordered accordingly.

¶12Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

20.7.2026 Ashwanii

CRM-M No.24760 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.24760 of 2026 Date of decision : 20.7.2026 Date of uploading : 21.7.2026 Harsh Yadav ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate and Mr. Ankush Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the complainant ---