Piyush v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-12448-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12448-2025 Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 PIYUSH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Md. Sadath Hussain, Advocate (through VC) for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.

H.S. Grewal, J.

1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.251 dated 10.09.2024, under Sections 318 (4), 204, 319, 3(5), 61(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and 66 (D) of Information Technology Act, registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Gurugram.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been alleged that the petitioner has committed cyber crime for an amount of Rs.5.85 crores from an account held by the petitioner. He also contends that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner as the money stands distributed among other coaccused. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 18.09.2024 and out of total 18 accused, 07 co-accused have already been granted the concession of bail.

3.

Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the DINESH KUMAR 2025.04.09 17:08 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side

CRM-M-12448-2025 -2petitioner, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 16 days. He further contends that challan has been presented but the charges are yet to be framed against the accused.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.

In view of the above submission of learned counsels, since the trial is yet to commence and the same is likely to take time, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 16 days and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 6.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

7.

It is also made clear that if any evidence regarding enhancement of the amount comes on record, the State is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 08.04.2025 JUDGE dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2025.04.09 17:08 I am the author of this document at the bottom of left side