Ashish Bhalla vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212
CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.09.2026
Ashish Bhalla
… Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Jasraj Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate,
Ms. Bahuli Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Chahit Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Veer Singh, DAG, Haryana.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking the concession of regular
bail to the petitioner in the following FIR:-
Particulars Details
FIR No. 369
Date of FIR 16.11.2024
Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, 1860, corresponding to
Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) BNS, 2023, read with
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013
Police Station Central, Faridabad
Sections
1.1. The present petition seeks grant of regular bail to the
petitioner during the pendency of trial in the aforesaid FIR.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
2. The petitioner had executed collaboration agreements with
various intending purchasers, whereunder the second party agreed to
contribute funds to the petitioner for the proposed development of a
plotted residential project in and around Sectors 111 to 114, Faridabad,
Haryana. It is submitted that the petitioner had already acquired
approximately 93 acres of land in the said area for a consideration of about
Rs.140 crore and was in the process of acquiring further agricultural/land
for development of the proposed project, either in its own name or in the
names of its associates/group companies. Upon acquisition of the requisite
land, the petitioner was to obtain the necessary permissions and licences
from the competent authorities and, thereafter, commence the marketing
and development of the project. The agreements further contemplated that,
subject to the project materialising, the requisite permissions/licences
being obtained and approval being granted by RERA, the intending
purchasers would have an option to obtain plots at a special down-
payment rate of Rs.22,000/- per square yard, exclusive of EDC, IDC,
preferential location charges, other statutory charges, taxes, stamp duty,
registration charges and incidental expenses. It was further stipulated that,
in the event the petitioner failed to make the allotment within 24 months of
execution of the respective agreements, or the allotment was not
acceptable to the intending purchaser, the agreement would stand
terminated, whereupon no further right, claim or obligation would survive
inter se the parties, save and except the intending purchaser’s entitlement
to refund of the collaboration amount together with interest as agreed.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
3. It has further come on record that the petitioner had acquired
substantial parcels of land and, upon applying for licences under the Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya Scheme, only two licences out of nine applications were
ultimately granted, the remaining applications having been declined.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner allotted plots to approximately 267 buyers
in the two sanctioned projects. Several FIRs thereafter came to be
registered against the petitioner, which were subsequently consolidated,
and the petitioner is now stated to be liable for an amount exceeding Rs.74
crore towards the claims of the complainants.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the offences under
Sections 406 and 420 IPC, having distinct and mutually inconsistent
foundational ingredients, cannot, on the same factual substratum,
simultaneously be sustained. During the course of arguments, learned
State counsel fairly conceded that the offence under Section 406 IPC is
attracted on the allegation that the petitioner failed to repay the money
borrowed by him. The said offence is punishable with imprisonment up to
three years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
provisions of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2013 are not attracted, as the amounts advanced by
the complainants do not fall within the definition of “deposit” under
Section 2(b) thereof, having been paid as contributions towards the
proposed purchase of land in connection with the development of the
contemplated real estate project. It is further contended that the entire
property of the petitioner has been attached by the Enforcement
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
Directorate, materially impeding his ability to discharge the claims of the
intending purchasers. It is also submitted that the Delhi High Court, in
WP(C) No.6254/2026 and CM Appl. No.55210/2026, has formulated a
scheme for settlement of the claims of the concerned claimants and
constituted an Empowered Committee under the Chairmanship of a retired
Judge of the Delhi High Court to undertake such settlement. Thus, a
structured mechanism is already in place for adjudication and settlement of
the claims of the complainants. Learned counsel lastly submits that, since
the offence under Section 406 IPC carries a maximum sentence of three
years and the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for
approximately 1 year and 5 months, nearly half of the maximum
prescribed sentence has already been undergone.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present case
involves a grave economic offence allegedly committed against hundreds
of intending homebuyers, many of whom are stated to have invested their
entire life savings in the hope of securing a residential house. It is
contended that the petitioner’s failure to fulfil his commitments has caused
substantial financial loss and shattered the expectations of numerous
innocent investors. Having regard to the magnitude of the alleged financial
irregularities, the number of affected persons and the overall gravity of the
allegations, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner does not
deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage.
7. While considering a prayer for bail, the Court is required to
balance the competing interests of individual liberty and the larger
interests of justice, having regard, inter alia , to the prima facie nature of
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
the accusation, gravity of the offence, severity of the prescribed
punishment, likelihood of the accused absconding or fleeing from justice,
possibility of repetition of the offence, apprehension of influencing or
intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the antecedents,
character, conduct and overall standing of the accused.
7.1. In the present case, the petitioner’s total alleged liability is
stated to be approximately Rs.75 crore. It is not disputed that, pursuant to
the collaborative agreements entered into with the complainants, the
petitioner acquired substantial tracts of land and applied for licences under
the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Scheme; however, out of nine licences applied
for, only two were granted and the remaining seven were declined. The
petitioner accommodated 267 investors in the two sanctioned projects and
is stated thereafter to have settled the claims of nearly 800 further
investors, either by refunding their deposits or by offering alternative
plots, leaving approximately 1200 intending purchasers, including nearly
500 complainants, whose claims remain to be addressed. Significantly, the
entire assets of the petitioner have been attached by the Enforcement
Directorate. Further, the Delhi High Court, in WP(C) No.6254/2026, titled
Faridabad Investors Welfare Associations vs. ED and Others , vide order
dated 18.08.2026, has constituted an Empowered Committee under the
Chairmanship of a former Judge of the Delhi High Court, inter alia , to
verify the genuineness and entitlement of investors’ claims, determine the
manner in which the attached properties or proceeds thereof may be
utilised for the benefit of genuine claimants, and examine a holistic
resolution of the projects, including the feasibility of completing the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:6:-
unfinished projects. Thus, a structured institutional mechanism is already
operating for identification and resolution of the claims of the investors,
while the petitioner has remained in custody as an under-trial for
approximately 1 year and 5 months. Having regard to the magnitude and
volume of the evidence likely to be led, the trial is not likely to reach its
conclusion in the near future. The continued incarceration of the petitioner,
therefore, has to be assessed in the backdrop of the fundamental
consideration that pre-trial detention is not intended to become punitive in
character. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chander vs. CBI,
2012(1) SCC 40 , has reiterated the governing principles in this regard,
which are required to be considered while determining whether further
incarceration is warranted pending trial and has held as under:-
“We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with
economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the
fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy
of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that
the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the
charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New
Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary
for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are
entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in
order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.”
7.2. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further
enunciated the following principle:-
xxxxxx
“In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:7:-
using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence
is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no
doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the
same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if
convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining
whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the
severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The
grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court.
The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and
circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to
bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the
community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a
criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve
the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the
same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the
Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will
submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon
whenever his presence is required.”
xxxxxx
8. In the present case, the allegations, prima facie , attract the
offence punishable under Section 316(2) of the BNS, 2023 corresponding
to Section 406 IPC, carrying a maximum sentence of three years. The
offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC rest on distinct and mutually
exclusive foundational ingredients, and, on the material presently
available, the case is primarily referable to the allegation of criminal
breach of trust. The petitioner has already undergone approximately half of
the maximum prescribed sentence. Further, his entire assets stand under
attachment and an Empowered Committee has already been constituted to
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:8:-
work out a mechanism for redressal of the claims of the complainants from
the attached assets. Having regard to the petitioner’s prolonged
incarceration, the existing mechanism for securing the claims of the
complainants and the fact that the trial is likely to consume considerable
time before reaching its logical conclusion, no useful purpose would be
served by continued incarceration of the petitioner pending trial.
Accordingly, this Court finds the present case to be a fit one for grant of
regular bail.
8.1. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the applicant-
petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing
requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may
be, and further subject to the following conditions:-
i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person
from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating
Agency.
ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in
any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or
indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any
prosecution witness.
iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India
without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport,
the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating
Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:9:-
iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the
petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the
present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate
documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the
correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance
of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the
event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or
incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of
the concession of bail in accordance with law.
v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either
at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as
may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number
(PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank
accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable
properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or
furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for
seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with
law.
vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as
the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential
address or mobile number within seven days of such change.
vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature
during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the
learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal
appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s)
shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior
permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of
any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-26578-2026 (O&M) -:10:-
trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to
proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the
concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process,
including warrants of arrest.
9. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising therefrom or ancillary
thereto, stand disposed of accordingly, the same having been rendered
infructuous by the final determination of the substantive proceedings. No
separate or further order is warranted in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
14.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.14 14:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document