Ramswaroo swaroop v. State of Ha of Haryana CRM
Case Details
CRM-M- -34387-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 222 Ramswaroo swaroop v. State of Ha of Haryana CRM-M-34387-2025 .2025 Date of Decision: 27.11.2025 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. Parveen, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Chokar, Advocate vocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Harya , Haryana. Mr. Bharat Pilania, Advocate f ocate for complainant. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner, an accused in case n case FIR No. 104 dated 22.11.202 .2024, registered tered against him under Sections 31 316(2), 318(4) of BNS, at Polic t Police Station Cyb Cyber, Jhajjar, has filed the prese present petition under Section 483 o 483 of BNSS for g S for grant of bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging fr ging from the documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:- Sandeep Madan, son of Dilba ilbagh Singh, resident of Dadri To i Toe, District Jh t Jhajjar, set the criminal law in w in motion by filing a complain plaint, pointing th g therein that on 4.11.2024, he re e received a message on ‘whatsap tsapp’ from a mo mobile No. 8982216382 for tradi rading. The caller questioned as as to whether he r he (c)is interested in earning mon money online to which he replied lied in
Legal Reasoning
affirmative tive. Pursuant thereto, he was a as added to whatsapp group (SM SMC GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34387-2025 2- -2 Notification ation 542), in which several other ther persons were already include luded. The admin min of the group asked him to inves invest Rs.50,000/-. Needful was don s done by withdra hdrawing the money from account ount in HDFC Bank. Complaina ainant alleges tha that in all, he invested Rs.14,5 14,50,000/-. The money had bee been withdrawn awn from his two accounts (HDFC B FC Bank and ICICI Bank). Howeve wever, when he w he went to withdraw the money, he , he was instructed to invest anoth nother Rs.51 lakh lakhs. It was then that he realiz alized that he has been cheated b ted by unknown p n persons. With this backdrop, he r , he requested the police authorities ties to catch hold hold of all those who were involved lved in the incident as also to initia nitiate appropriat riate criminal proceedings against inst them. On the basis of the sa e said complaint, int, a formal case vide FIR No. 104 104 dated 22.11.2024, was registere stered against him t him under Sections 316(2), 318(4) 8(4) of BNS, at Police Station Cybe Cyber, Jhajjar. During the course of investiga estigation, the bank account statemen tements of the two e two accounts of the complainant lainant were collected and taken in en into possession. ession. It came to the notice of ice of the Investigating Officer th cer that Rs.11,50,00 1,50,000/- had been transferred in a d in account No. 13500210005118 o 5118 of UCO Bank Bank. This bank account was in the in the name of present petitioner, i.e ner, i.e., Ramswaroo swaroop, son of Dilbagh Singh. The . The entire documents were collecte cted from the b the bank and were taken into pos to possession. On 31.12.2024, prese present petitioner w ioner was arrested, who confessed to h d to his involvement in the commissio mission of offence ffence and also disclosed the detai details of other accused, who we o were involved w lved with him. Other three accused, ed, namely, Manish Gujjar, son o , son of Hanuman R man Ram Gujjar, Samdar, son of Soh of Sohan Lal and Bhagwan alias Rah s Rahul Saini, son son of Ganpat Lal, were arreste rrested on 31.12.2024 and 2.1.202 .1.2025, respectively ctively. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34387-2025 3- -3 It also came to the notice of t ce of the Investigating Officer that Rs hat Rs.3 lakhs taken taken fraudulently from complainant, ainant, had been transferred into anoth another account in unt in UCO Bank. Request was mad s made to the authorities to supply th pply the details of t ls of the said account, but till date, date, no reply has been received. O ed. On culmination ination of investigation against peti st petitioner and three others, challa challan complete in lete in all respects was filed in the n the Court on 3.1.2025. All the fou the four accused hav sed have been charge sheeted under Se of BNS. der Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS Petitioner moved an applicatio lication for grant of bail before learn learned Additional tional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. The The same came to be dismissed vid ed vide order dated r dated 26.5.2025. Aggrieved of whic f which, present petition has been file en filed for grant of rant of bail. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petiti petitioner submits that petitioner, wh er, who has been in een in custody since 31.12.2024, ha 24, has been falsely implicated in th d in the present cas nt case. Further more, to avoid inconv inconvenience to the family and to sav to save legal hassl hassles, the matter has been compr compromised with the petitioner vid er vide compromis romise deed dated 20.5.2025. In the In the light of these developments th that learned cou ed counsel contends that further inca r incarceration of petitioner in custod custody would not d not serve any useful purpose. Lea . Learned counsel further submits th that other three three accused have already been exten n extended the concession of bail by th il by the learned tria ed trial Court vide orders dated 17.1 d 17.1.2025, 20.1.2025 and 10.1.202 .1.2025 (Annexure exure P-4 Colly.), thus similar treat r treatment be meted out to him (P im (P). Prayer for for allowing the petition has been m made. 4. Per contra, learned State cou counsel while opposing the reque request for grant of bail, submits that petitioner titioner along with co-accused false falsely induced co complainant to part with his hard hard earned money on the pretext th that the money money invested would earn handso andsome returns. Complainant wa was GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34387-2025 4- -4 defrauded uded to the extent of Rs.14,50 4,50,000/-. During the course of investigatio tigation, approximately Rs.11 lakhs lakhs was found transferred in an account in in UCO Bank which is in the nam name of present petitioner. The sam same indicates ac active involvement of petitioner. oner. That apart, there are several oth other complaints laints received on the National Portal against the said accoun account. Towards th the end, learned State counsel con contends that in case the concessio cession of bail is is extended to petitioner, the like likelihood of him fleeing from the process of of justice by not appearing in the Court is quite high, for petitioner tioner is a permanen manent resident of Rajasthan. Prayer rayer for dismissal of petition has bee been made. 5. Heard learned counsel for for the parties and perused the documents ments on record. 6. Factual aspects of the case lea leading to the registration of the FI FIR have alread already been noticed in para 2 of the the order. In view of the submission issions advanced by learned counsel for the pet petitioner, but without commentin menting further on on the merits of the case, keeping ng in view the fact that petitioner has been in cus custody since 31.12.2024, investig vestigations qua him are complete, fo lete, for challan has an has already been filed, as also tak so taking note of the fact that out of out of 8 prosecution cution witnesses, none has been exam n examined till date, thus, possibility o bility of completion letion of trial in the near future is quit is quite remote, lenient view is taken taken in favour of ur of petitioner who is not involved volved in any other criminal case, b ase, by extending h ding him concession of bail, for his for his further incarceration would n uld not only be vio be violative of his rights under Articl Article 21 of the Constitution of Indi f India, including r ding right to speedy trial but would would also be against the principle o ciple of “Bail is a is a general rule and incarceratio ration is an exception” as held b held by GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34387-2025 5- -5 Hon’ble ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh an and another, 20 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 7. Petitioner is granted the co he concession of bail subject to h to his furnishing b shing bail bonds and two sound suret sureties in the sum of Rs.1 lakh each each to the satisfa satisfaction of learned trial Court/D ourt/Duty Magistrate concerned. Th ed. The petitioner s ioner shall abide by the following cond g conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not not tamper with the evidence durin during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will ill not pressurize/intimidate the th prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall no l not leave the country without prio prior urt. permission of the trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not l not commit an offence similar to th to the offence of which, he is an acc accused, or for commission of whic which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall n ll not directly or indirectly coerc oerce, induce, threaten or promise to ise to any person acquainted with th ith the facts of the case so as to dissu dissuade him/her from disclosing suc g such facts to the Court or to any any police officer or tamper with th ith the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not berty. not in any manner misuse his liberty (vii) The petitioner shall f ll furnish his address and mobi obile number to the Trial Court fo rt forthwith and shall not change th ge the same till the conclusion of the f the trial and in case for any reaso eason, the petitioner seeks to chang ange any of the aforesaid, the sam same shall be done only with prio prior intimation to the learned Tri Trial Court, stating the reason for th for the same. (viii) The petitioner will appe appear before the trial Court on eac n each and every date fixed, unless i ess is exempted by a specific order der of Court. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -34387-2025 6- -6 (ix) The trial Court/Duty M ty Magistrate may impose any oth other condition, as deemed app g appropriate while releasing the th petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present petiti t petition is allowed and it is made cle de clear that in case in case there is any breach of the afore e aforesaid conditions, the State shall b shall be at liberty t erty to seek cancellation of bail as ail as granted to the petitioner by th by this order. 9.
Decision
In view of the above, it is cla t is clarified that the observations mad ns made herein are l n are limited for the purpose of prese f present proceedings and would not b d not be construed a trued as an opinion on the merits of the s of the case and the trial would procee proceed independen endently of the aforesaid observations ations. .2025 27.11.2025 gbs NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document