Prakash v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.227 Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 PRAKASH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Kunal Muthreja, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0442 dated 20.12.2025 registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 along with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (added later) at Police Station Cyber Crime NIT, Faridabad, Haryana, during the pendency of trial.

2.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and is in custody since his arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation in the case already stands completed and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. It is further submitted that the trial

is likely to take considerable time to conclude and the petitioner is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. the allegations levelled against the petitioner are regarding commission of cyber fraud. It has further been alleged that the defrauded amount was transferred into the bank account of the petitioner and that he had provided his bank account to co-accused Ramesh Kumar for using the same in the commission of cyber crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has now been compromised with the complainant and the petitioner has already paid and returned the entire amount to the complainant.

3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer, has not disputed the aforesaid fact and has submitted that the matter has been verified and the amount in question has been returned by the present petitioner.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book.

5.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he induced the complainant to invest money in the stock market through digital platforms and under such inducement, the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- through UPI. However, it is not disputed that the entire amount has since been returned to the complainant. The petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last 03 months and 08 days. The investigation already stands completed and presentation of challan/conclusion of trial is

likely to take some time. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period. 6.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 27.05.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No