Parveen Kumar Rai v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.05.2026 Parveen Kumar Rai

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Gill, Advocate and Ms. Sweedel Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ekom Pal Sagoo, A.A.G., Punjab.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present third petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.21 dated 01.08.2024, under Sections 318, 319, 61 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Punjab State Cyber Crime, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.

Succinctly facts of the case are that the FIR has been lodged on the statement of Harish Gupta. It was alleged that on 31.07.2024, he was in GST Office, Ludhiana for meeting with officers and in his absence one of his employee, namely, Seema who works as an Accountant in his company, received a Whatsapp message from Whatsapp account number/phone number carrying his display photograph asking her to transfer Rs.49,60,401/- in the bank account of Babu Sheikh having Indusind Bank Account No.157022401654. Seema believed that the aforementioned messages was being sent by the complainant and hence, she transferred a sum of Rs.49,60,401/- from complainant's company account in State Bank of India to IndusInd Bank account number, due to aforementioned fraudulent transaction,

complainant suffered a huge financial loss of Rs.49,60,401/-. Request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the registration of the FIR, investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 02.08.2024. He approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, praying for grant of bail, however, after hearing counsel for the parties and finding no merits, the same was declined vide order dated 20.01.2025. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner earlier approached this Court twice by way of filing CRM-M-11952-2025 and CRM-M-40852-2025, however, the same were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 08.04.2025 and 05.08.2025, respectively. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present third petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays for the grant of bail on the basis of parity with that of the co-accused. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by this Court in CRM-M-58351-2025, whereby co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Abhishek Kumar Singh, has been granted the concession of regular bail. He has submitted that case of the petitioner is at par with that of the co-accused, who has been granted regular bail by this Court. He submits that on the basis of the parity, petitioner deserves to be granted bail as case of the petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused, who has already been granted regular bail. 4.

Learned State counsel has filed the status report by way of affidavit of Mr. Jaspinder Singh, P.P.S., Superintendent of Police, State Cyber Crime Division, Punjab, Phase IV, SAS Nagar, Mohali on behalf of respondent-State and the same is taken on record. He has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he endorsed the fact that case of the petitioner is at par with co-accused, namely, Abhishek Kumar Singh, has already been granted regular bail by this Court.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner has been arrested on 02.08.2024. Admittedly, co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Abhishek Kumar Singh, has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2026. 6.

The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court.

7.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Thus, keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the basis of parity. 8.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9.

In case the bail bonds are not furnished by the petitioner during the period of 07 days from today, then his further custody period after one week will not be counted in the present case. 01.05.2026 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) ps-I JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No