CRM-M/36637/2026 of ARVIND SHARMA Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 14 July 2026

1. This is the second petition seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No.296 dated 20.8.2025, under section 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (420, 120-B IPC), Section 66D of IT Act, registered at Police Station, Cyber Crime East, District Gurugram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that complainant Shakuntla Gulia made a complaint regarding fraudulent siphoning of Rs.1.46 crores via fake investment platform "PTUdry.com". The allegations against the petitioner are that during the course of investigation, beneficiary accounts were located and an amount of Rs. 52 lakhs was stated to have been received in the account of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence. He further submits that it was the petitioner himself who informed the RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh concerned bank that the current account maintained in the name of Arvind Electronics had been debit-frozen. Upon making enquiries, the petitioner came to know that certain fraudulent transactions had taken place through the said account, which, according to him, were neither carried out by him nor within his knowledge. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner himself requested the bank to investigate the matter, which clearly demonstrates his bona fide. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.08.2025 and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, and he deserves to be enlarged on regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that as per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months and 15 days and is not involved in any other case.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is in custody for the last 10 months and 15 days; he is not involved in any other case coupled with the fact that the trial of the case is yet to RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh commence and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that if, while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. 14.07.2026

(H.S.GREWAL) renu

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT

Chandigarh