Mahendra Ram Alias Mayank v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on :20.05.2026 Mahendra Ram @ Mayank ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. M.S. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Senior DAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.241 dated 18.10.2025, under Section 318(4) of BNS (Sections 61(2), 336(2), (3), 338, 340, 241 of BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

2.

Allegation against the petitioner is that an amount of Rs.4,30,000/- was paid by the complainant-Parul to the petitioner for securing his job in the Airline SpiceJet Company as Air Hostess, without even conducting of interview. Petitioner projected himself that HR Mahendra Ram of the company is his friend and if the amount is paid to him, the appointment letter would be handed over to her (complainant).

Initially, Rs.50,000/- were demanded, however, on making payment from time to time, it went on to increase. This way, the petitioner received a total amount of Rs.4,30,000/- from complainant-Parul. 3.

I have heard the respective counsel and find that complainant, who wanted to secure her job against the payment of amount, also might have learned some lesson including the petitioner, who has remained inside jail, for the period more than 6 months and 20 days. Petitioner has come up with a proposal to make the payment to the complainant and as of now, a demand draft bearing No.107519 dated 19.03.2026 amounting to Rs.1,30,000/-, is handed over to complainant-Parul for its further encashment by her. Photocopy of the demand draft is taken on record. 4.

Considering the aspect that the offences are triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and the total incarceration period and making payment of partial amount i.e. Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant today in the Court, in the shape of demand draft, I do not find it substantial to continue the incarceration period any longer because determination of trial is also likely to be considerable time.

5.

In view of the aforementioned, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

6.

Any of the discussion done and recorded hereinabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore,

trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

7.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 20.05.2026 JUDGE Preeti S.

Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No