Udhay Singh Alias Uday Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.9327 of 2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.9327 of 2026 Date of decision : 12.3.2026 Date of uploading : 12.3.2026 Udhay Singh @ Uday Singh .............Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present 2nd 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 FIR No.87 dated 8.6.2024 under Sections 74, 77 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 420 of IPC (Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda. 2.

The gravamen of the FIR in question is that during the period from 1.5.2024 to 6.6.2024, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused has cheated the complainant to the tune of ₹6 crores approximately, in the name of investment in the share market by making a fake and fabricated app.

CRM-M No.9327 of 2026 -23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 2.5.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is, in fact, a victim himself as his account has been wrongfully used by co-accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that the main accused namely Vinod Vasudev Chitwani alias Vicky alias Tom has been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 5.2.2026 passed in CNR No.PBBT010013332026, CIS No.BA-482-2026. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man aged about 46 years and sold bread earner of his family. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 12.3.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 2.5.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 1.7.2025 qua the petitioner and subsequently filed. Charges were framed in the instant case on 3.2.2026. Total 20 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has

CRM-M No.9327 of 2026 -3been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues which shall 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 12.3.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 10 months and 4 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6.2 Indubitably, the present petition is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The last bail plea preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.9.2025. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and pace of the trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under:

"10.

As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge:

I.

Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II.

Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for nonprosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

CRM-M No.9327 of 2026 -4III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.

IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s).

V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed." Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. 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 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 cell-phone 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.

CRM-M No.9327 of 2026 -5- (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8.

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.

9.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 12.3.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No