IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mohd. Harun alias Mohammad Haroon alias Mohd. Haroon ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Sonal Singh Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner (through VC)

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

***

MANISHA BATRA , J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

FIR No. Date Police Station Sections

334 12.11.2024 Cyber Crime Police318(4), 61(2) and 241 of Station, Gurugram,the Bharatiya Nyaya District Gurugram Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and 66D of IT Act, 2000

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Pawan Goyal alleging therein that he was made a victim of cyber fraud by some unknown persons, who by alluring him to earn profits on shares, had involved him in trading of shares through Zerodha App and had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.1,15,40,000/-. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The details of the bank accounts in which the money from the bank account of the complainant had been transferred were obtained and one of such bank accounts was found to be operative in the name of the present petitioner and a sum of Rs.7,55,000/- belonging to the complainant was found deposited in the same. The petitioner was arrested on 12.05.2025. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had been joined by the co-accused Deepak Bhatt in the business of committing online fraud by offering handsome money by way of commission and on his asking and in connivance with the abovesaid accused Deepak Bhatt, he had registered a firm with the name of M/s MH Enterprises in his name. A sim card was also taken by him in the name of the said firm. He had opened a bank account and had given cheque books etc. to accused Deepak Bhatt. He had given a sum of Rs.70,000/- to him by way of commission. Investigation qua the petitioner now stands completed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is on bail in other cases registered against him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana while relying upon the pleas taken in the status report and while placing the custody certificate has vehemently argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner who in connivance with the co-accused had facilitated a cyber crime thereby making the complainant, a victim of the same and causing loss to the tune of Rs.1,15,40,000/- to him. The petitioner was an active participant in the crime. He is a habitual offender being involved in four more cases. That apart, 28 complaints are pending in the cyber portal qua the same bank account which was opened by the petitioner and was used in this case. There are chances of petitioner’s tampering with evidence, influencing material witnesses, committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have connived with the co-accued Deepak Bhatt and got registered a firm in his name. The bank account that was opened in the name of this firm, has been used for the purpose of transfer of money withdrawn from the bank account of the complainant by the other cyber fraudsters who are yet to be arrested and joined into investigation. The all