PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Anmol – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-25926-2024
Decided on : 26-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
0059 | 13.12.2023 | Cyber Crime, District Faridabad, Haryana | 420 IPC (Section 201/120B IPC 1860 and 66C/66D of IT Act 2000 added later on) |
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail.
2. As per custody certificate dated 09.09.2024, the accused has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"The detailed facts emanating from the present case are that Sh. Ashish Bhatia (S/o Tilak Raj Bhatia R/o H. No. 43 Sec-23 Faridabad, made a complaint to the police with the allegations that he is self-employed, and on 20.07.2023, he received a WhatsApp message on his mobile phone no. +91 7745854584. Thereafter, he made a call from his mobile on said WhatsApp on 23.07.2023 and an offer was made to the complainant for part-time job. The complainant started working as per their directions. At the initial stage, they got videos liked from the complainant, and they paid Rs 1000/- as profit amount. Thereafter, they gave him telegram-id @ ANYA-520000 and informed him about a big task and asked him to invest five thousand rupees and gave him Kotak Mahindra Bank A/C no. 7048196641, and as per their directions, he has sent Rs 5000/- through Paytm in Kotak Mahindra Bank A/C no. 7048196641 from his HDFC Bank A/C no. 50100610661147, and the accused have shown him the increased amount on the screen. The accused supplied him another telegram group, HAVALDAR-007, and asked him to invest 30,000/- in Federal Bank A/C no. 55050131688788. Thereafter, the complainant asked to return his money, upon which it was informed him that task is still incomplete and they have pressed him and got transferred money in "Yes Bank" A/C no 070163300007234 amounting to Rs 50,000/-, Rs 2,00,000/-, 2,00,000/-, 5,00,000/, and 4,00,000/- by playing fraud and cheating with him. All the aforesaid transactions were made from his ICICI Bank A/C no. 661301636938. Further, the accused got transferred money amounting to Rs.90,000/- in PNB A/C no. 3237002100029773. However, no money was returned to him, upon which the complainant made a prayer to them to return his money, on which they asked him to complete the last part of the task and got money transferred from him in ICICI bank account No. 055505013334 from his ICICI Bank A/C no 661301636938 to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/-, 4,00,000/-, 4,00,000/-, The total amount defrauded from the complainant was Rs 33,75,000/-, It was further found that the aforesaid money amounting to Rs 33,75,00/- has been sent in 5 beneficiary bank accounts through 11 transactions from the complainant by playing cheating and fraud. The complainant also made a prayer to the accused for returning his money. but all in vain. Therefore, upon the aforesaid complaint of the complainant Ashish Bhatia, present FIR no. 59 dated 13.01.2023 u/s 420 IPC was registered in Police Station, Cyber Crime, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana, and section 201/120B IPC were added later on during the course of investigation of the case conducted by the local police."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"That it is also pertinent to mention here that after the registration of the present case, initial investigation of the case was conducted by HC Narveer, Cyber Crime, Police Station, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. However, as per the instruction of the higher authority, the case file was entrusted to PSI Arjun, Cyber Crime, Police Station, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana, and during the course of investigation, as per the technical work done by PSI Arjun, it was revea
The court granted bail to the petitioner due to extensive pre-trial custody, emphasizing the need for stringent conditions to prevent further offenses and ensure compliance during the trial.
The court established that involvement in serious fraudulent activities, supported by substantial evidence, is a valid ground for denying bail.
Criminal Proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Superior Courts while exercising this power should also strive to se....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.