Court Holds Continued Custody Of Undertrial Not Warranted After Filing Of Challan; Observes Trial May Take Considerable Time
LawDaily.org | Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has granted regular bail to Main Pal, an accused in an alleged land compensation fraud case involving allegations of wrongful transfer of more than ₹1.08 crore from land acquisition compensation funds.
Justice Sumeet Goel allowed the petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and directed the release of the petitioner on regular bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.
The order was passed in CRM-M-24367-2026, decided on 20 July 2026, in the matter of Main Pal versus State of Haryana.
The petitioner was facing proceedings in FIR No. 14 dated 26.05.2025, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, District ACB, Rohtak, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Background Of The Case
The case originated from a complaint received by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Haryana, regarding alleged irregularities in the payment of enhanced land acquisition compensation relating to land situated in Village Kasar, Tehsil Bahadurgarh.
According to the prosecution case, the complaint alleged that an amount exceeding ₹1 crore was wrongly transferred as compensation in favour of a person named Sunil Kumar through alleged collusion between certain officials and private persons.
During verification and investigation, the authorities examined records relating to land acquisition compensation. The prosecution alleged that after enhancement of compensation by judicial proceedings, the concerned departments prepared records for payment of enhanced compensation amounts to eligible landowners.
It was alleged that certain persons prepared incorrect records and caused transfer of compensation amount of ₹1,08,74,568/- into the account of Sunil Kumar, despite him allegedly not being the rightful beneficiary. The prosecution further alleged that the alleged acts involved preparation of false documents and misuse of official position, resulting in registration of offences under provisions relating to criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments Before The High Court
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that the petitioner had been in custody since 26 January 2026 and that the investigation had already been completed. The defence submitted that the prosecution case was primarily based upon documentary evidence and there was no possibility of the petitioner tampering with such evidence.
Counsel further pointed out that other co-accused persons, including Sunil, Navdeep, Sonu @ Sonu Kumar and Kulwant Singh @ Kulwant, had already been granted regular bail. It was also submitted that the challan had already been presented against the petitioner and therefore further incarceration was not required.
State Opposes Bail, Calls Allegations Serious
The State opposed the bail petition and argued that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature. The State submitted that considering the nature of accusations, the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail. The State also placed the custody certificate dated 17 July 2026 before the Court, which was taken on record.
Court’s Consideration Of Custody Period And Trial Progress
After hearing both sides and examining the available record, the High Court noted that the petitioner was arrested on 26 January 2026. The Court further observed that after investigation, the challan against the petitioner had already been presented on 15 April 2026. The prosecution had cited 32 witnesses, but none had been examined till the date of consideration of the bail petition.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the trial would take considerable time for completion. The Court noted that the rival contentions raised by both sides involved debatable issues which would be examined during trial and that the Court should not conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage as it could prejudice the proceedings.
The Court also recorded that there was nothing on record indicating that the petitioner was likely to abscond or interfere with prosecution evidence.
Five Months Custody Considered By Court
The Court considered the custody certificate placed by the State and noted that the petitioner had undergone incarceration for approximately five months and seventeen days.
It was also noted that the petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case.
Considering the overall circumstances, the Court observed:
“Further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
High Court Grants Regular Bail With Conditions
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
However, the Court imposed several conditions to ensure proper conduct during trial.
The petitioner was directed:
- Not to misuse the liberty granted by the Court;
- Not to tamper with oral or documentary evidence;
- To remain present before the trial court on all dates unless exempted;
- Not to commit any offence while on bail;
- To deposit passport, if any, before the trial court;
- To provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer/SHO and not change it without permission;
- Not to delay the trial proceedings.
The Court further clarified that in case of violation of bail conditions, the State or complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Court Clarifies Bail Order Will Not Affect Trial
Before concluding, the High Court clarified that observations made in the order were only for deciding the bail application and would not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial court would independently examine the evidence and decide the matter in accordance with law.
Legal Significance Of The Order
The order reiterates important principles governing grant of bail in economic offences and corruption-related cases. While courts recognise the seriousness of allegations involving public money and fraudulent transactions, continued detention of an accused as an undertrial cannot be justified merely on the basis of allegations when:
- Investigation is complete;
- Challan has been filed;
- Evidence is primarily documentary;
- Trial is likely to take considerable time.
The decision also highlights the principle that bail proceedings are not meant for conducting a detailed examination of evidence. The Court must only assess whether continued custody is necessary considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Main Pal v. State of Haryana reflects the balance between protecting public interest in corruption cases and safeguarding the liberty of an undertrial accused. While the allegations involve an alleged wrongful transfer of significant land compensation funds, the Court found that continued incarceration was not justified after completion of investigation and filing of challan. The case will now proceed before the trial court, where the prosecution and defence will have the opportunity to establish their respective claims through evidence.