Rahul Yogi v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-48315-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48315-2025 (O&M) Decided on : 09.12.2025 RAHUL YOGI ......Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Hemanth Kumar, Advocate, and Mr. Akshat Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Kumar Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner(s) FIR No.

Date Section(s) Police Station District Rahul Yogi 0062 28.04.2025 318(4), 61(2) of BNS Cyber Crime Rewari 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the prosecution case, complainant Sanyogita lodged a complaint alleging that on 10.04.2025, she was contacted on Telegram by users operating under the IDs @Anitha1444 and @Cspricerunner, who induced her to rate

CRM-M-48315-2025 (O&M) 2 certain products and deposit money into various bank accounts. Consequently, complainant transferred total amount of Rs.1,16,462/- into different bank accounts.

3.

As per the status report dated 31.10.2025 filed by learned State counsel, it has been clarified that from the complainant's SBI Account No.32519094212, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was transferred to Fino Bank Account No.20385900495 belonging to accused Pawan Kumar Saini. It is further explained that an amount of Rs.76,462/- (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.26,462/-) was credited to Ratnakar Bank Account No.409002353624 in the name of M/s Mahakal RO Sales and Services, Proprietor Nitanishu Holkar.

4.

With respect to the role of the petitioner, it has been explained in the status report that during investigation, it emerged that petitioner had facilitated the opening of the aforesaid Fino Bank account in the name of Pawan Kumar Saini through a co-accused, Akash Chaudhary. For this service, Akash Chaudhary allegedly paid the petitioner an amount of Rs.10,000/-, which the petitioner shared with another co-accused, Govind.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no amount from the complainant or from any other co-accused has been credited into the petitioner's own bank account and his implication rests solely on disclosure statements, whereas amounts in question have been traced to the accounts of other accused persons, as detailed above. It is further argued that the alleged offences are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and given the improbability of the allegations vis-à-vis the

CRM-M-48315-2025 (O&M) 3 petitioner, who has been in custody since 12.05.2025, his further incarceration serves no meaningful purpose. Thus, counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the present case. 6.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, while confirming the allegations against the petitioner, submits that similar to the complainant, many other individuals in society are being duped and victimized in such cyber-crime schemes, which are presently on the rise. It is argued that offences of this nature are increasing at an alarming rate, and therefore, present bail petition deserves to be dismissed, so as to deter and discourage such offenders. 7.

This Court has heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the record available on file. 8.

Since no amount has been found credited to the petitioner's bank account, his actual involvement in the alleged offence is yet to be conclusively established. Moreover, petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2025 and appears to have already undergone custodial interrogation; therefore, his further incarceration serves no meaningful purpose, particularly when the case is triable by the Court of learned Magistrate.

9.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors discussed hereinabove, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing

CRM-M-48315-2025 (O&M) 4 bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

10.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

11.

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 12.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 09.12.2025 Lavisha Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO