High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/815/2026allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State Of Ut Chandigarh

2026-02-04Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel7 pages

CRM-M No.815 of 2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M No.815 of 2026 Date of decision : 4.2.2026 Date of uploading : 4.2.2026 Vijay Kumar .............Petitioner

Versus

State of U.T. Chandigarh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Kulwinder Bhargav, Advocate and Mr. Mandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.41 dated 19.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'), at Police Station Cyber Crime, UT, Chandigarh. 2.

The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that a written complaint dated 17.12.2024 was submitted by the complainant, namely, Snigdha Reddy, to the SHO, Cyber Crime, Sector-17, Chandigarh, regarding an incident of cyber fraud. She stated that while searching for an online part-time job, she received a WhatsApp message

CRM-M No.815 of 2026 -2from the number +91-9142259412. She was informed that the job involved increasing likes on online videos and was subsequently added to a Telegram group where similar tasks were assigned. After completing a few such tasks, she received some payment and was assured of further profits. She initially invested a small amount of ₹1,000/- and received ₹1,300/- in return. Thereafter, she was pressured into making larger transactions. In order to avoid losing her invested amount, she made multiple transfers from her SBI and HDFC Bank accounts. It was alleged that she ultimately transferred a total amount of ₹10,99,520/- from her accounts to the fraudsters.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 30.5.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that investigation into the FIR, in any case, is complete and culmination of the trial will take long. Learned counsel has further argued that last transaction alleged to have taken place is of 17.12.2024 whereas, the FIR in question was registered on 19.04.2025 and gap between two is inexplicable. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Learned counsel for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 3.2.2026. Learned counsel for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus, the

CRM-M No.815 of 2026 -3petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. 5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand: 6.1

!" #$ %&% '$ ( )*

# # $

' ()

' * + ,%

CRM-M No.815 of 2026 -4-

% )

% '

0 %

% 1

# # +$( ,- !" +- # " &

% %

1 !

#./ 0 +*1*- # )1 # %

)

CRM-M No.815 of 2026 -5-

)

1 #

1 7.

The petitioner was arrested on 30.5.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 27.8.2025 and subsequently filed. Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

7.1 As per custody certificate dated 3.2.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 8 months and 5 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case/FIR. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground

CRM-M No.815 of 2026 -6sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall be required to deposit a FDR of ₹50,000/- in the name of said Court & the petitioner shall remain further bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

CRM-M No.815 of 2026 -7- (vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 9.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

10.

Ordered accordingly.

11.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 4.2.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No