Yatin Kumar Pathak v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-37529-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37529-2025 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025 YATIN KUMAR PATHAK ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Majra, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in case FIR No. 362 dated 03.12.2024 under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 61(2) of BNSS and Section 66-D of I.T.Act registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Gurugram.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the co-accused participated in an online cybercrime involving the deception of individuals.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per allegation the petitioner provided the details of the bank account and SIM of the registered mobile number of the complainant in lieu of Rs. 30,000/- to the co-accused, Rahul, who was involved in cyber-crime and embezzlement of funds from innocent people.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner Renu Rawat 2025.07.22 18.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-37529-2025 -2is in custody for the last 06 months and 06 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is involved in two more cases in which he has a similar role and has already been granted bail by the trial Court.

6.

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

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 06 months and 06 days, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

8.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

10.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 22.07.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.07.22 18.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document