CRM-M No. 17133 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking grant of regular bail to the

petitioner in FIR No. 18 dated 22.03.2025 under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420, 468, 470, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Sonipat, District Sonipat, Haryana, during the pendency of trial.

#2. As per the prosecution case, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant alleging that he was contacted through WhatsApp messages and was offered a work-from-home opportunity through Telegram. The complainant was allegedly induced to join a Telegram group where he was informed that he could earn money by completing Google Tasks. Initially, the complainant was assigned certain small tasks and was allegedly provided returns, due to which he gained confidence in the scheme. CRM-M-17133-2026 2

2.1 It is further alleged that thereafter, the accused persons introduced prepaid tasks and induced the complainant to deposit larger amounts with the assurance of higher returns and commission. On the pretext of completion of tasks, improvement of credit score, activation of account and withdrawal of accumulated commission, the complainant was allegedly made to deposit various amounts in the bank accounts provided by the accused persons.

2.2 The prosecution alleges that despite depositing the demanded amounts, the complainant was not permitted to withdraw the accumulated amount and was repeatedly asked to make further payments on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that between 01.03.2025 and 05.03.2025, the complainant transferred an amount of approximately 18,00,000/- into ₹ different bank accounts provided by the accused persons and was thereafter cheated through the said fraudulent online task scheme.

2.3 During the course of investigation, the police collected details of the bank accounts, digital transactions and other electronic evidence relating to the alleged fraud. On the basis of the investigation conducted, the petitioner Amit Ray was implicated, as it was alleged that he was connected with the bank account(s) used for receiving and transferring the cheated amount. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was part of the alleged conspiracy and facilitated the commission of the cyber fraud by providing or operating financial channels used by the other accused persons. The role of the petitioner is stated to have surfaced during investigation through analysis of bank transactions and other electronic material collected by the investigating agency. After completion of investigation, the petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under the relevant provisions of law. CRM-M-17133-2026 3

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent of the allegations levelled against him. It is contended that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged fraudulent online task scheme and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

3.1 Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced only during the course of investigation. It is argued that the implication of the petitioner is based upon the alleged analysis of bank transactions and electronic evidence, which are yet to be tested during the course of trial. There is no direct evidence on record to establish that the petitioner induced the complainant, communicated with him, operated any Telegram group or participated in the alleged cheating.

3.2 It is further submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. There is no allegation that the petitioner contacted the complainant, made any false representation, demanded money from him or directly received any amount from the complainant. The alleged role of the petitioner is based only upon the alleged linkage with bank transactions, which by itself does not establish his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.

3.3 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 25.10.2025 and is in custody since then. The investigation already stands completed and challan has been presented before the learned Trial Court. No further recovery is required from the petitioner and his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is also submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. There is no CRM-M-17133-2026 4 likelihood of the petitioner absconding or influencing the prosecution witnesses.

#5. Notice of motion. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the reply by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime District Sonipat, on behalf of respondent/State has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record, copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel opposite.

5.1 Learned State counsel opposed the bail and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, involving a well- planned cyber fraud wherein the complainant was induced to transfer a substantial amount of money on the pretext of online task-based earning. It was argued that during investigation, the role of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of bank account details, digital transactions and other material collected by the investigating agency. It was further submitted that the petitioner was allegedly connected with the financial channels used for receiving and transferring the cheated amount and was part of the conspiracy along with other accused persons. Learned State counsel contended that the investigation has revealed the involvement of multiple accused persons and the financial trail is required to be examined during trial. It was also argued that the offences alleged are serious in nature and releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage may hamper the proceedings or affect the evidence.

#6. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 25.10.2025, and the fact that the investigation in the present case stands completed, the challan CRM-M-17133-2026 5 has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, the continued incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of material collected during investigation and the evidence against is primarily documentary/electronic in nature, which is already in possession of the prosecution. It is further significant that the co-accused Gaurav Kumar has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in CRM-M-57739-2025. The petitioner claims parity with the said co-accused, subject to the distinction in their respective roles being considered during trial. Since the trial is yet to commence and is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion, further detention of the petitioner would not be warranted at this stage.

#7. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions. CRM-M-17133-2026 6

#8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

#1. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

#2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

#3. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

#4. The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

#5. The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material CRM-M-17133-2026 7 particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

#6. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

#7. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE

22.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No