Vijju v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-13787-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13787-2025 Reserved on: 05.05.2025 Pronounced on: 19.05.2025 Vijesh Rar @ Vijesh @ Vijju ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, D.A.G., Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 5 09.01.2024 Cyber Crime 170, 389, 420, 120-B IPC Central, District (Section 201 IPC added later Faridabad on) 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. In paragraph 6 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he 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 brief facts of the case in hand are that the present case was lodged on the complaint of Dr. Parmod Kumar Arora son of Kishan Chand, on the allegations that on 7.1.2024 at about 1:30 PM, he received a call on his mobile no.9650099050 from mobile no.7715096096 of an unknown person who told himself as an employee of Fedex, who told that a parcel had been sent on his Aadhar number for Taiwan containing 200 grams MDMA. If this parcel did not belong to him, he should report at Crime Branch, Mumbai. If he could not go Mumbai, then he would arrange his call to Crime Branch, Mumbai. Thereafter, he made him talk to another person through conference and that person introduced himself as a Sub Inspector and he told that his higher officer was not in the office then and he would make him talk tomorrow. After that on 1 Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.23 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-13787-2025 8.1.2024, again a call came on his mobile number from the above said number and the caller told that he would make him talk to the Crime Branch and then a person namely Bal Singh talked to him, who told that he was DCP, speaking from Crime Branch, Mumbai and was keeping watch on his case and a high level team would investigate this case and he sent police officer's ID card and some police related documents etc. on his mobile number from WhatsApp no.9366001623 and asked him to send complete details of his bank account, so that they could check whether money had been sent to his bank account by any drug selling gang. After that, he sent complete details of his HDFC bank account no.06151130003683 along with other personal information. After that the person posing himself as Police Officer told that he had to immediately send 48% of money from his bank account and after that they got noted account No. 2302260954599865 IFSC Code ABUL0002521 of Shri Garments. Being frightened of the police case, on 8.1.2024 he transferred Rs.31,76,246/- in account no..2302260954599865 through RTGS. After that, they threatened him that if he would disclose to anyone, they would implicate him in a case under section 377 IPC. In this way, cyber crime was committed with him. On the complaint, present FIR came into existence.” 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. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: “The petitioner was involved in the present case on the ground that he encashed the self-cheque issued by the co-accused Vikas. In the bank statement of the account holder accused Sunil Poonia, it was written that the case has been withdrawn by Vijesh (the petitioner). On the instructions of co-accused Vikas, the petitioner Vijesh used to take a self cheque to the bank, signed it, give a copy of his Aadhar card to the bank and withdraw the money in cash and was handed over to co-accused Vikas.” REASONING: 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount which the petitioner has received is Rs.15,000/-, out of which Rs.2000/- has already been recovered, as such no purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars. 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. Per paragraph 5 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 18.01.2025. Per the custody certificate dated 22.03.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.23 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-13787-2025 this FIR is 02 months and 05 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, amount already recovered and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 9. 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. 10. Given 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/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 11. 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) 12. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 13. 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. 14. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 15. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 16. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.23 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-13787-2025 to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 17. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 19.05.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.23 13:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4