CRM-M/21429/2026 of PANKAJ KUMAR AND ANR Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 22 July 2026

1. The present second 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. The present FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Rahul Khatri, alleging that he received a WhatsApp message from an unknown mobile number offering him an opportunity to earn money by working from home through Google Tasks on Telegram. Initially, the complainant was paid small amounts for completing the assigned tasks. Thereafter, he was induced to participate in prepaid tasks by depositing money with the assurance of higher returns. Believing the KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh representations made by the fraudsters, the complainant transferred different amounts into various bank accounts provided by them and also received certain amounts initially to gain his confidence. Ultimately, he was cheated of an amount of approximately Rs.18,00,000/-. During investigation, co-accused Gaurav Kumar was nominated as an accused and arrested. Upon completion of investigation, the challan was presented against him. Subsequently, co- accused Amit Roy was arrested on 25.10.2025, and during interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement wherein he disclosed the involvement of the present petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners were nominated as accused and arrested on 20.11.2025. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was credited into the bank account of petitioner No.1 and that the mobile number linked with the said bank account belonged to petitioner No.2. According to the prosecution, out of the said amount, petitioner No.1 received Rs.15,000/-, whereas petitioner No.2 received Rs.10,000/-. Upon completion of further investigation, a supplementary challan was presented against the petitioners.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have no role whatsoever in the commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioners have been nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Amit Roy, which has no independent evidentiary value unless corroborated by legally admissible evidence. 3.1 It is further argued that although an amount of Rs.50,000/- is alleged to have been credited into the bank account of petitioner No.1, the prosecution case itself reveals that petitioner No.1 was not operating the said account. Rather, the account was allegedly being operated by the main KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh accused, namely Akhilesh and Ravi Shankar, who are still absconding and whose arrest is yet to be effected. It is further submitted that, as per the prosecution case itself, petitioner No.1 is alleged to have received only Rs.15,000/-, whereas petitioner No.2 allegedly received Rs.10,000/- out of the said amount. 3.2 Learned senior counsel further submits that the investigation has already been completed, the supplementary challan has been presented, and no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the petitioners. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by their further incarceration. 3.3 It is also argued that co-accused Gaurav Kumar, who was similarly situated, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025, and the petitioners are entitled to the same relief on the principle of parity. It is submitted that although an earlier bail petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 03.02.2026, the same was declined only because the petitioners had not completed the period of custody undergone by the said co-accused. Since the petitioners have now undergone more than 08 months of custody, they are entitled to seek regular bail on the ground of parity. It is lastly contended that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and the petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case.

4. Notice of motion.

5. 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 KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

Sonipat, on behalf of respondent/State in Court today, which is taken on record, copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel opposite. 5.1 Learned State counsel, opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that the petitioners are active participants in a well- organized cyber fraud racket through which the complainant was cheated of approximately Rs.18,00,000/-. It is contended that during investigation, the involvement of the petitioners surfaced on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Amit Roy as well as the money trail linking the petitioners with the proceeds of the crime. 5.2 Learned State counsel further submits that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was credited into the bank account of petitioner No.1, and the mobile number linked with the said account belonged to petitioner No.2, thereby establishing their connection with the alleged offence. It is argued that the petitioners knowingly facilitated the commission of the cyber fraud by allowing their bank account and mobile number to be used for routing the cheated amount. It is further submitted that the allegations pertain to a serious economic offence involving cyber fraud and cheating of innocent persons, which has wide-ranging societal ramifications. Therefore, considering the gravity and nature of the allegations, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of regular bail.

6. Be that as it may, considering the custody period already undergone by the petitioners, who are in judicial custody since 20.11.2025 and have undergone more than eight months of incarceration, and the fact that the investigation in the present case stands completed, the supplementary challan has already been presented before the learned Trial Court and no further KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, their continued incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners have been nominated primarily on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Amit Roy. Apart from the alleged money trail, no incriminating recovery has been effected from or at the instance of the petitioners, and the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution is predominantly documentary and electronic in nature, which is already in its possession. It is further significant that 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 petitioners claim parity with the said co-accused, particularly when they have now undergone a period of custody exceeding that which was considered while granting bail to the said co-accused. Since the trial is yet to commence and is likely to take considerable time to reach its logical conclusion, further detention of the petitioners would not be justified 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 petitioners would serve no KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioners are 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners their permanent residential addresses as well as present correspondence addresses, 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 petitioners 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 KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh

Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

6. The petitioners 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 petitioners 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. They shall not absent themselves from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or their 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 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA

Chandigarh