Devinder @ Devendra v. State Of Haryana And Another


was allegedly transferred in the account of the petitioner on 08.07.2025 and, subsequently, the said amount was further transferred to various bank accounts, as per the details mentioned in the present petition. On the strength of such weak evidence, the petitioner was arrested on 14.02.2026 and his disclosure statement was recorded. Even, as per the said disclosure statement of the petitioner (Annexure P-1), he had only received an amount of Rs.35,000/- out of the above said transfer of money in the form of commission. He further contends that the petitioner has already returned the whole amount of Rs.5,78,900/- to the complainant, which is clear from the statement of the complainant dated 03.04.2026 (Annexure P-2).

Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner himself is a victim in the present case as he was defrauded by his own friend. In fact, he was kept in the dark and was never informed that his account may be misused for any illegal financial transaction. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody since 14.02.2026 and after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented against him.



   !"

###"!$" %#&& ' & '&'&#&& #&&&&% &%'

$& 4.

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

)&'&&$ $* %$&& 

# %

&"+&$ 

 $* %$&&&# && # & #& & %&$"!

$ &# &! &&, &  

#-&&&-  # ./$

#!
 $ & %* '! -#&# &$"&%$&&# %"!

#-& $  & &- $ "

#%#&$"&&
& &0 #&  -&$& !"&%  -&+& ###&"#  & && $ 0 #& % &"

 & # !&

-&!#-&-&&%%&$"

 ./$

#!
 &
   

      

 !"

 1 #$  %&'   ( '   ( ' ) '

 )* )  +   ,   %)   (

  * -  (    . 

  * 

)     "    (-  )  -  )    /   *  +* - *   .         

*  - .   (  . (

 .



  .  

   

   -. + * (.     ,   %) 0 1  

 -     -    -   (     

0    - *      .  (      )  2  *  %  ( (   )    

      (  .  ((  

 +)        .   ( )  -  (   . )  



   

        

  ( (   (         *    %)    . ( +    (       &  +
   )   2 ,  . +  

4  56"./$

#!
 $  1 #%)     *   .   

. .    ( (

  ( +  .

    ,          -     )    -     

.    .   ,   .   )     )     "!  -  *  7)   .   )  2  3)    "!  !

5   + .  -

     .          ( (     ((    .  0  -    )  

.  - -  - (    ( * - ((        -  (   -    -  (   , (     .

     .   7)    3  %)

 8    6  94!   !

 :  - 

(   !6 .  -  .

 (  

 %)   7)  - (-

 )   - -   (( *    ( )  !

- 

(   (   !6  ,  7)           -     .    ./ ( ( ) )  / .    .

 *  !

   *

 ( ( - -   -    

  /  + * , (  

.

      .   7)     71 7    6  695 -   -    ( (    .

  

     -  )  .  

  .    /(    ( *  (

    (

    .

   * (( *   .  -              (

 - +* .

     (    . 

   ( ( * . 

.  .  -    * , 7)         -   * -      (  * - * ( 



- -   7)   ) )    .   )    . .    .   .   )   7)     * .

 *   .

       .* 

.    )      (  

.*     *   (  

 *  )      

 , (   (( * ((    -      ; ( ) ( 64<  .- = >      0  -  )   

 ( .   - (   * .  

     .. . -     +   *  )  

      

 *  

* + .*)  )  

.  . > 2 +n the present case, serious allegations of online fraud have been wrongly levelled against certain individuals by the complainant. However, it is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.5,78,900/- was allegedly transferred to the account of the petitioner, which he has

 already returned to the complainant. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody for the last about three months and challan has already been presented against him. All the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate and he is not the main kingpin of the offence. Only allegation against him is that his account was misused by his co-accused, thus, his case is clearly distinguishable from the case of his co-accused.

3 + &-%$ -&  !!&'"%  !&##&&&-#&&& $$&&% &&'$&$4 "$ &% &%&
 45 "'&4
6  19.05.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT) amit rana JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No