Jora Singh vs State Of Haryana

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1
CRM CRM-M-33101 CRM CRM 33101 33101-2026 33101 2026 2026 2026


114 114 114 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CRM CRM-M-33101 CRM CRM 33101 33101-2026 33101 2026 2026 2026

Jora Singh
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
…Respondent

Date of Date of Decision Date of Date of Decision Decision: : : : November 11 Decision November 11 November 11, 2026 November 11 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: November 11 Date of Uploading: November 11, 2026 , 2026
Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: November 11 November 11 , 2026 , 2026

CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Present:- Present: Present: Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.



SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL)

Present 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 bearing FIR No.17 dated 07.12.2025,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 61(2) & 308(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station State Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Panchkula.
2. The petitioner was afforded the concession of interim regular
bail, vide order dated 27.08.2026; relevant whereof reads thus:







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

2
CRM CRM-M-33101 CRM CRM 33101 33101-2026 33101 2026 2026 2026

“ 6. The petitioner was arrested on 02.04.2026 whereinafter
investigation was carried out and challan qua the petitioner was presented
on 26.05.2026. Total 28 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none
has been examined till date. The rival contention raised at Bar give rise to
debatable issues, which shall essentially 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.
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 25.08.2026 filed by learned State
counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04
months and 23 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).
Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in
hand; especially factum of challan (upon culmination of investigation)
having been filed, total 28 prosecution witnesses having been cited
whereas none has been examined till date and the petitioner, being not
involved in any other case; this Court is inclined to afford bail to the
petitioner, for the present.
”

There is no allegation of misuse of said concession of interim
bail at the end of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the interim order dated
27.08.2026, whereby interim regular bail was afforded to the petitioner
ought to be made absolute.
3. Before parting with this order, there is another aspect nay vital
aspect of the matter which craves for attention of this Court.
Vide order dated 27.08.2026, it was, inter alia , recorded thus:
“ 7.2. Time and again, this Court has observed a deeply
concerning trend wherein public servants, upon being enlarged on
Anticipatory bail/Regular bail during the pendency of trial for
offence(s) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, are usually
reinstated into active service. This situation assumes an alarmingly
prejudicial dimension when such reinstatement results
repatriation/posting of the accused to the very same department,
office or geographical jurisdiction that forms direct subject matter
of ongoing criminal prosecution. Pertinently, such ill-considered
administrative actions carry an inherent and grave propensity for
the accused to abuse their official clout, tamper with crucial
documentary/oral evidence, coerce the prosecution witnesses, and
fundamentally subvert the course of fair and impartial trial. While
this Court remains cognizant that the adjudication of suspension,
reinstatement and subsequent place of posting falls primarily







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

3
CRM CRM-M-33101 CRM CRM 33101 33101-2026 33101 2026 2026 2026

within the administrative domain and discretionary realm of
employer/concerned department, this Court cannot be remain
oblivious to ground realities where administrative oversight
directly undermines the administration of justice. This hazard is
magnified when an accused public servant belongs to a law
enforcement/investigating agency and is reinstated to the sensitive
post, thereby affording him/her unhindered access to sensitive
records and subordinate personnel involved in the very case
against him/her. Recognising the gravity of this systemic malady,
and before further delving into these issue(s), the Chief Secretary,
Haryana is hereby directed to file a comprehensive and detailed
response outlining the framework, standard(s) of procedure,
service rule/regulations/guidelines etc. governing the reinstatement
of such public servants. The response must, specifically elucidate
whether existing protocols mandate mandatory consultation with
the prosecuting agency or the trial Court before revoking a
suspension and how the officer/authority directing for
reinstatement assess the unquantifiable threat of witness tampering
or record manipulation. ”

The State has filed an additional affidavit dated 28.10.2026 of
Sh. Anurag Rastogi, IAS, Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana; relevant
whereof reads thus:
“ 3. That it is pertinent to mention here that a letter No. 09/49/2025-
6VI dated 27.10.2026 has been issued by the State Government of
Haryana (Vigilance Department) regarding transfer of officers/officials
concerned accused in trap case/raid cases. The operative part of the above
said letter instructions is reproduced as follows:
“ 2. The matter has been considered by the Government
at length and it has been decided as under:-
i. Officers/officials are apprehended red-
handed in trap cases/raid cases and are on
bail shall not be posted against the same post
and in the same station.
ii. Such officers/officials shall be transferred to
a station away from the concerned
jurisdiction, preferably beyond the adjoining
boundary districts, so as to ensure a fair and
impartial trial and to prevent any possibility
of undue influence being exercised upon the
complainant/witness.
iii. If such an official belongs to district cadre,
he/she shall be transferred to another distant
station within the district.”
A copy of letter issued vide No. 09/49/2025-6VI dated 27.10.2026
is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/1.
4. That in pursuance thereof the all concerned have been directed for
strict compliance.
”

4. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

4
CRM CRM-M-33101 CRM CRM 33101 33101-2026 33101 2026 2026 2026

i) The present petition is allowed allowed allowed. The interim order dated allowed
27.08.2026 is made absolute absolute absolute & the petitioner is directed to be absolute
released on regular bail upon such terms/ conditions as may be
deemed appropriate by the concerned CJM/ Duty Magistrate. 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 cellphone 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.

In 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.
ii) The State shall remain bound by the additional affidavit ( ibid )
of the Chief Secretary, Haryana. Any deviation/ variation from
the same, without prior permission of the concerned competent
Court, shall, indubitably, invite penal consequences qua the
Chief Secretary, Haryana/ concerned officer(s).

5. Ordered accordingly.







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

5
CRM CRM-M-33101 CRM CRM 33101 33101-2026 33101 2026 2026 2026

6. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
7. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.










(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL) SUMEET GOEL
JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE
November 11 November 11, 2026 November 11 November 11 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026
mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No







MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.11.11 17:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment