Gaurav v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 01.10.2025

Pronounced on: 28.10.2025 Gaurav

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Angad Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 21.12.2024 Sector 6, Dharuhera, District Rewari 303/318(4) of BNS (Subsequently Section 303 was removed and 316 of BNS was added) 1.

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2.

Per paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"3.

That the factual backdrop leading to the registration of the above-mentioned FIR is that complainant Smt. Preeti Yadav moved a complaint on 21.12.2024 in Police Station sector 6 Dharuhera, District rewari contending therem that she had an account No.050901528437 maintained at ICICI Bank Branch. Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) and had got a link on telegram application in her mobile phone in her Instagram account in which there was a video to give money in lieu of work from home It was further contended by the complainant that she used to receive messages on her telegram application account through that link and after opening the link of the video and after taking screen shot, it was to be forwarded. The complainant further contended that she had made an investment of Rs. 1,000/- in that and when she got another link, then she deposited the amount of Rs.21,000/-, Rs.3,000/-, Rs.32,500/-, Rs.25,000/- Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 11,500/- and Rs.2,000/- total Rs. 96,000/-and an assurance for good return in the shape of amount was received. The complainant further contended that when she invested the amount.

her account was blocked and thereafter, she received a message that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- more be deposited only then the whole amount will be received by her. It was further contended by the complainant that after 2-3 days thereafter, a request for depositing Rs. 50,000/- was received and it was stated that her whole amount will be received by her. Two days earlier, she got the message to deposit another amount of Rs. 20,000/- and to receive 1,15,000/-. She got the messages time and again for investment. Later on, she came to know that she had been cheated on the pretext of assignment of work from home. After that she got lodged a complaint by dialing No. 1930 of Cyber Portal, but she did not get any satisfactory response. Legal action was sought. On these allegations, the FIR aforementioned was registered and the investigations in the matter were taken up. Hence the present FIR."

4.

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

5.

The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

6.

The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. 7.

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows:

"9. That the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific. As per investigation, the petitioner had been operating multiple accounts, even that of his mother. A sum of Rs 11,500/- from total fraudulent amount had been received in the bank account no. 10204936454 of IDFC First Bank of his mother Mrs. Naveena which was operated by the petitioner. The petitioner had been found to be acting in league with other fraudsters. The duped amount had been found to be deposited in the account operated by the petitioner. He had committed the crime against the innocent persons and had duped them of huge amount. The prosecution evidence is yet to be recorded. In the event of grant of bail to the petitioner, he may very well dissuade the witnesses from disclosing the truth and may flee from justice as well." 8.

There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.

9.

Per paragraph 5 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 22.12.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 30.09.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 09 months and 08 days.

10.

The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal.1In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial.-Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? -Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case?

-Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail.2 Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.3 Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually, but judicially with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community.4 When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated.5 11.

Given the above, the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 12.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

13.

Given the above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 10,000.

14.

Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead 1 Supreme Court of India in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. state of Rajasthan, [E-SCR] ; [2008] 17 SCR 369, Para 16, decided on 12.12.2008.

2Supreme Court of India in State of Kerala v. Raneef, SC 2J [E-SCR]; [2011] 1 SCR 590, Para 4, decided on 03.01.2011.

3 Supreme Court of India in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, SC 2J [E-SCR], Paragraph 127, decided on 02.12.2010.

4 Supreme Court of India in Babu Singh & ors v. State of UP, [E-SCR] P. 777, decided on 31.01.1978. 5 Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 309, Para 26, [E-SCR], decided on 23.11.2011.

of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 10,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the "Chief Judicial Magistrate" of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged. 15.

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 16.

This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 17.

The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

18.

The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition. 19.

This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail. 20.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 21.

It is clarified that this bail order shall not be considered as a blanket bail order in any other matter and is only limited to granting bail in the FIR mentioned above. 22.

In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [Decided on 05.08.2025), in

CRA-D-123-2020], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that "To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished." 23.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 28.10.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.