Rs 7 Cr Transaction by Misusing PAN Card: Punjab & Haryana Grants Bail on Conditions [Read Order]

Sanjay Singhal, the applicant, is alleged to have made a fake transaction. The complainant Virendra Kumar received a notice that the said firm has made transactions of about Rs. 7 crores in the year 2020-2021.

Complete practical guide to Drafting Commercial Contracts, Click Here

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.11.2024. Counsel has further iterated that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, and the petitioner is not beneficiary of the alleged transaction. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man aged 48 years with no criminal antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

The counsel has also filed a status report by way of affidavit of Jeet Singh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kharkhoda, Sonipat in Court today. The same be kept on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition and argued that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.

The petitioner was arrested on 13.11.2024, whereinafter an investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 23.12.2024. A total of 71 prosecution witnesses have been cited and only two have been examined till date. Thus it is indubitable that the culmination of the trial will take its own time.

The court found nothing tangible brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per custody certificate dated 13.7.2025 filed by State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of about more than eight months & is not shown to be involved in any other case.

Practical Case Studies in Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud Investigation - Click Here

A single bench of Justice Sumeet Goel viewed that further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the 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 other conditions mentioned by court. It was held that “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.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates