Harun v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 22.12.2025 Harun .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.37, dated 24.12.2021, under Sections 34, 406 & 420 of IPC (Section 34 IPC deleted while presenting the challan and Sections 201, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Rewari, District Rewari. 2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case got registered on the statement of complainant, namely, Nisha Kumari. It was alleged that her friend, namely, Hitesh Soni and his cousin, namely, Pardeep were involved in a cyber crime. It was alleged that they opened her account in HDFC bank and this account was used for the purpose of financial fraud. On knowing the same, the complainant got

-2freezed the account and thus, the request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the basis of the complaint, the present FIR has been lodged. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, co-accused, namely, Hitesh was arrested and on his disclosure, complicity of other accused including that of the petitioner surfaced, thus, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present case. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 16.02.2025. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari praying for grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.03.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for grant of regular bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that however during the investigation, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which in itself is not even an admissible evidence. He has submitted that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 16.02.2025. He has submitted that the co-accused, on whose statement, the petitioner has been named in the FIR, has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. He has submitted that the investigation in the present case is already complete and the charges have also been framed, however there is no material progress in the trial. He

-3has further submitted that though the petitioner is falsely involved in one more case, however he is on bail in that case. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner along with the co-accused has committed a cyber offence. He has submitted that the complainant has been cheated for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. He has submitted that during the investigation, complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie proved. He, on instructions from ASI Mukesh Kumar, has submitted that out of total 07 accused, 05 accused are on bail. He, on instructions has further submitted that out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court which is taken on record.

5.

Heard.

6.

On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that complicity of the petitioner surfaced during the investigation on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. The Coaccused, on whose statement, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present case, has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. The petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest, i.e. 16.02.2025. Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 10 months and 04 days as on 19.12.2025. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in 01 more case, however in that case, he is on bail. Out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, no witness

-4has been examined so far.

7.

The veracity of the allegations and counter 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. 8.

This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, 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. 9.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the 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.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 22.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No