CRM-M/48088/2026 of RAVI SAINI Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 2 September 2026

229 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-48088-2026 Date of decision: 02.09.2026 RAVI SAINI ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

*** VIKRAM AGGARWAL,

J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 20, dated 23.02.2026 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Kurukshetra, under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 112 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’).

2. Custody certificate dated 31.08.2026 filed today in Court is taken on record.

3. While the Cyber Police was observing entries in Bank accounts through the Samanvay portal, it was noticed that a particular account in ICICI Bank was being used for heavy credit and debit of money. It was, therefore, suspected that the account was being used in cyber crimes. Upon checking, it was found that two complaints pertaining to the same account had been lodged NEERAJ

on the National Cyber Crime Portal. The account was found to be in the name of Kanishka Poultry Farm, whose proprietor was found to be one Raman Kumar. The said Raman Kumar was arrested on 22.02.2026. It was also found that there were entries of Rs. 93,30,100/- in his account from 04.08.2025 to 31.08.2025. On the basis of a disclosure statement of Raman Kumar, the petitioner was arrested on 23.02.2026 and is in custody since then.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence against him. He submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are largely clean. He further submits that the main accused Raman Kumar is in custody. He submits that investigation stands completed; final report has been submitted; charges have been framed and out of 15 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. Under the circumstances, trial will take a sufficiently long time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 39,000/- as commission.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. Concededly, the petitioner was arrested on the basis of a disclosure statement of Raman Kumar, in whose name the account was functioning and there were heavy debit and credit entries. The said Raman Kumar, who is the main accused, is in custody. The factum of the petitioner NEERAJ

having received a sum of Rs. 39,000/- shall be determined during the course of the trial. The petitioner is in custody for the last 05 months 10 days. Investigation has been completed; final report has been submitted; charges have been framed and out of 15 witnesses, none has been examined. It is, therefore, clear that trial will take a sufficiently long time and in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) 02.09.2026

JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No NEERAJ