Sanoj v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 29.01.2026 Sanoj ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Kamal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Birender Bikram Attrey, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.126 dated 13.05.2025 under Sections 318(4), 61(2) BNS and Section 66-D of IT Act registered at Police Station Cyber Manesar, Gurugram Haryana.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.09.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner had provided his bank account to the co-accused, which was allegedly used by them to park money obtained through cyber fraud from the victims. It was further contended that the petitioner is a poor person and works as a helper in Juice shop, on the assurance of being extended the benefit of a government scheme, his account was opened, while the ATM card remained in the possession of the co-accused. Investigation qua the petitioner has already been completed and trial will take sufficient time to conclude. He is having

( 2 ) clear antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal activity. It is further contended that co-accused Amit Kumar Kharana has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-61578-2025 and case of the present petitioner is on similar footings as that of co-accused, thus, the petitioner deserves to be released on regular bail.

3.

Learned State counsel opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that such type of offences are increasing day by day; the present petitioner wilfully provided his account to be used by co-accused, however, he fairly admitted that his case is on similar footings as that of co-accused Amit Kumar Khurana, who has already been granted bail by this Court. He is not involved in any other criminal activity except the present one.

4.

Heard.

5.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case; the petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2025; investigation qua him has already been completed; there is no material to suggest that he is involved in any other criminal case except the present one; co-accused Amit Kumar Kharana has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-61578-2025; offences are triable by Magistrate; trial will take sufficient time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody for any further period, as concession of bail cannot be denied just as a measure of punishment, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

( 3 ) 6.

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 bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 29.01.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No