Sonu Tiwari v. State of Punjab

o o o o oo INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoATo CHANDIGARHo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 212o o o o o o ooCRM-M-228-2026o(O&M)o o o o ooDateoofodecision:oo25.02.2026o o o o Dateoofouploading:oo25.02.2026o o o o SonuoTiwario o o o ....Petitionerooo o o V/so o StateoofoPunjabo o o o ....Respondento o o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSUMEEToGOELo o Present:oo Mr.oHimmatoSinghoSidhu,oAdvocateoforotheopetitioner.oo o o o o Mr.oJaypreetoSingh,oDAG,oPunjab.o o o oo *****o SUMEEToGOEL,oJ.o(ORAL)oo o

1.o o PresentopetitionohasobeenofiledounderoSectiono483oofoBNSSoforo grantooforegularobailotootheopetitioneroinocaseobearingoFIRoNo.247odatedo

09.09.2025o registeredo foro offenceso punishableo undero Sectionso 406/420/465/467/468/471o ofo IPC,o ato Policeo Stationo Sahnewal,o Districto Ludhiana.o

2.oo o Theo caseo seto upo ino theo FIRo ino questiono (aso seto outo byo theo petitioneroinotheopresentopetition)oisoasofollows:-o "Ato present,o ito iso enteredo thato ano applicationo Serialo No.1144-Zone-2odatedo19.11.2024ofromoShamoSunderosonoofoSh.oUjjagaro CRM-M-228-2026o(O&M)o o P a g e o|o2o o o o Ram,oresidentoofoH.No.2,oVillageoandoPostoofficeoLuhara,oDistricto Ludhianao haso beeno receivedo ato theo Policeo stationo foro theo registrationoofoaocaseoagainstoPawanoKumarosonoofoSh.oBhagato Ram,oresidentoofoH.No.232,oWardoNo.05,oDoraha,oLudhianaoando SonuoTiwariosonoofoSh.BindachaloTiwari,oresidentoofoH.No.458/4,o Streeto No.01,o Newo Smarto Colony.o Sahnewal,o Ludhiana,o theo contentsoofowhichoareoasounder:-oTo,oTheoCommissioneroofoPolice,o Ludhiana.oSubject:oApplicationoagainsto(1)oPawanoKumarosonoofo Sh.BhagatoRamosonoofoSh.SantoRam,oresidentoofoH.No.232,oWardo No.05,oDoraha,oLudhiana,o(2)oSonuoTiwariosonoofoSh.oBindachalo Tiwari,osonoofoSh.RamoKrishanoTiwari,oresidentoofoH.No.458/4,o StreetoNo.01,oNewoSmartoColony,oTehsiloandoDistrictoLudhianao (Mobileo No.98152-05006)o foro theo cheatingo ofo committingo Rs.33,40,000/-owithotheoapplicant.oSir,o1,oShamoSunderosonoofoSh.o UjjagaroRam,oamotheoresidentoofoH.No.2,oVillageoandoPostoofficeo Luhara,oDistrictoLudhianaoandoIoamoaobusinessman.oIorequestoaso under:o(1)oThatotheoaccusedoNo.2ohadoenteredointooanoagreemento withomeoono12.06.2023oforooneopropertyomeasuringo400osq.oyards,o theoboundariesoofowhichoareotowardsoNorth:o25ofeetowideostreeto measuringo60ofeet,oSouth:oNeighbourer,o60ofeet,oEast:oSeller,o60o feet,o West:o Neighbourer,o 60o feeto 664/689,o pageo 876/877,o jamabandio foro theo yearo 2011-12,o situatedo ino villageo Dhandario Kalan,o Hadbasto No.241,o segmento Dhandari,o Tehsilo &o Districto Ludhiana,oforoaosumoofoRs.31,50,000/-oandotheoaccusedopersonso hadogototheoregistryomadeoono08.08.2023oinotheonameoofomyowifeo Smt.oSumanoBala.o(2)oThatoafterotheoregistry,owhenoweowentotootheo saidopropertyoandoputotheomarkingothereoandoputotheopillars.oButo nextoday,owhenoweoreachedoatotheoproperty,oweosawothatotheopillaro putobyousowereodemolished.oThereafter,oIogaveotheoinformationotoo theopolice.oTheopoliceodidotheoverificationoandocameotooknowothato theoregistryoofotheopropertyohasoalreadyobeenomadeoinotheonameoofo oneoBalwinderoSingh,owhoseonumberoiso9815881776.oThereaftero weo contactedo theo accusedo persons.o Theno theo aboveo accusedo personso startedo dilly-dallyingo ando dido noto giveo anyo positiveo responseoandoweocameotooknowothatocheatingohasobeenodoneowitho us.o Botho theo aboveo accusedo personso ino connivanceo witho eacho otherohaveocommittedotheocheatingowithous,obyovirtueoofowhich,oweo sufferedohugeolossomentallyoandofinancially.oTheoaboveoaccusedo CRM-M-228-2026o(O&M)o o P a g e o|o3o o o o personsohaveothreatenedousothatoweohadotoocommitotheocheatingo withoyou,owhichoweodid.oItoisoourodailyoroutine.oWeohaveocontactso inotheopoliceoandoyouocannotoharmous.oThus,oyouoareorequestedo thatolegaloactionobeotakenoagainstotheoaboveoaccusedopersonsoforo committingotheocheatingowithomeoandojusticeobeodoneotoome.oSd/o Applicant,oShamoSunderosonoofoSh.Ujjagar."o

3.o o Learnedo counselo foro theo petitionero haso submittedo thato theo petitionero iso ino custodyo sinceo 06.11.2025.o o Learnedo counselo foro theo petitionerofurtherosubmittedothatotheopetitionerohasobeenofalselyoimplicatedo intootheoFIRoinoquestion.ooLearnedocounseloappearingoforotheopetitionerohaso furtheroarguedothatotheogenesisoofotheoFIRoinoquestionoisoactuallyoaocivilo dispute,ofactsowhereofohaveobeenotwistedotoolendocriminalocolourothereto.oo Learnedo counselo haso iteratedo thato assumingo arguendo,o theo prosecutiono versionoavailableoatothisojunctureoisotakenotoobeocorrect,otheopetitioneroiso onlyoaowitnessotootheosaleodeedoinoquestion.ooLearnedocounseloappearingoforo theo petitionero haso furthero submittedo thato theo challano alreadyo standso presentedoandonoousefulopurposeowouldobeoservedobyokeepingotheopetitionero inofurtherocustody.ooLearnedocounseloappearingoforotheopetitionerohasofurthero arguedothatotheopetitioneroisoaomanoagedo39oyearsowithocleanoantecedentso andoisoaosoleobread-earneroofohisofamily.ooThus,oregularobailoisoprayedofor.oo

4.o o Learnedo Stateo counselo haso vehementlyo opposedo theo presento petitionobyoarguingothatotheoallegationsoraisedoareoseriousoinonatureoand,o hence,o theo petitionero doeso noto deserveo theo concessiono ofo regularo bail.oo Learnedo Stateo counselo seekso too placeo ono recordo custodyo certificateo datedo

24.02.2026oinoCourt,owhichoisotakenoonorecord.oo

5.o o Iohaveoheardocounseloforotheopartiesoandohaveogoneothroughotheo CRM-M-228-2026o(O&M) P a g e | 4

o -.o o Ato thiso juncture,o ito 0ouldo beo appositeo too refero hereino too ao judg:entoofotheo;on<bleoSupre:eo/ourtotitledoasoGudikantioNarasimhuluo andoothersovs.oPublicoProsecutor,oHighoCourtoofoAndhraoPradeshoAIRo 1 !"o#$PR%&%oC'$R(o)* ,orele8antotihereoforeadsoasounder6o "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 CRM-M-228-2026o(O&M) P a g e | 5

o seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on 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." -...o o %urther,otheo;on<bleoSupre:eo/ourtoinoaojudg:entotitledoaso Gurcharano#inghovs.o#tateo+$(oofo,elhi-o1 !"o+1-o#CCo11",ohasoheldoaso under67o "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." -.(.o o %urther:ore,otheo;on<bleoSupre:eo/ourtoinoaojudg:entotiledo asoSanjayo/handrao8s.o/#&o4(*.(5o.oS//o *,ohasoheldoasounder6o "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-228-2026o(O&M) P a g e | 6

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

¶7The petitioner was arrested on 06.11.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 30.01.2026. Total 14 prosecution have been cited out of which none has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that conclusion of trial will take long. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties; as to the whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR, shall be gone into 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 rights of either of the parties. $othingotangibleohasobeenobroughtofortiardo tooindicateotheoli9elihoodoofotheopetitioneroabscondingofro:otheoprocessoofo justiceoorointerferingotiithotheore:ainingoprosecutionoe8idence. As per the custody certificate dated 24.02.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for 3 months & 14 days and is not shown to be involved in any other case/FIR. Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶8The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned 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. CRM-M-228-2026o(O&M) P a g e | 7

o

(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.

¶9In 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 State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶10Ordered accordingly.

¶11Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶12Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE February 25, 2026 Na)een