IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.01.2026 Date of uploading: 30.01.2026 Ram Vilas Pandey ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Amrit Paul Nahar & Mr. Saurav Shukla, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.39 dated 20.11.2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Cyber Crime, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the complainant was allegedly cheated of an amount of ₹13,78,278/- by certain unknown persons through a cyber fraud, on the pretext of performing online tasks. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the petitioner had opened a current account in the name of one Samarthaya Tiwari and thereafter handed over the said account to the co-accused, namely Kunwar Dubey, which was allegedly used for the transfer of the cheated amount.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that the investigation qua the FIR in question is already complete and trial is underway. He has further iterated that the prime prosecution witnesses namely PW-Ramesh Chander Gupta (FIR-complainant) stands examined. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, hence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated

27.01.2026 in Court, which is taken on record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 27.05.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 11.07.2025. Total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which one i.e. FIR-complainant stands examined. It is not in dispute that the culmination of trial will take long. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties; as to the whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR, shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage lest it may prejudice the rights of either of the parties. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the remaining prosecution evidence.

6.1. Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for securing regular bail. The first one bearing no. CRM-M-44561-2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.08.2025, wherein the following order was passed:

“1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.39 dated 20.11.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station Cyber Crime, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

2. Faced with the situation that the FIR/complainant is yet to be examined as prosecution witnesses, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition in hand, at this stage.

3. Ordered accordingly.

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstance of the case in hand, especially keeping in vie