IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.03.2026 Hemant Kumar Meena ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Akshay Laller, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG, Haryana MANDEEP PANNU, J.

CRM-44453-2025 Allowed as prayed for.

Main case This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 15 dated 13.03.2024, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Panchkula.

Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Panchkula on the basis of the statement of complainant Gagan Anand alleging commission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. As per the case of the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR. It is alleged that the prosecution has linked the occurrence with a Wi-Fi connection allegedly used in the commission of the offence, however, there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. The petitioner has no relationship or dealings with the complainant and has been implicated merely on the basis of the internet connection, which is accessible to multiple users.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced only in the disclosure statement of co-accused Jai Prakash, which by itself has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is further argued that there is no direct or indirect evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offences and no amount from the alleged fraud has been credited into any bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner is neither an employee of the Bank nor of the telecom company allegedly involved in the fraud and, therefore, the ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are not made out against him. Learned counsel further submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is not required as he is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency. It is also argued that the co-accused, including Vandana Pokharel, Latuer Singh Meena, Jai Prakash, Vikas Kumar Meena, Bharat Pareek and Sunil Sharma, have already been granted the concession of bail by the competent courts and the case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, thus entitling him to the benefit of parity. It is further submitted that except for the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there is no material connecting the petitioner with the alleged occurrence and such disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and shall not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and involve a well-planned cyber fraud causing wrongful loss ₹

to the complainant to the tune of about 73 lakhs. It is contended that during investigation it was revealed that the fraud amount was transferred from the complainant’s account into the bank account of co-accused Latuer Singh Meena and thereafter, routed through various accounts opened and operated by the accused persons. It is further submitted that during investigation various documents including CDR details, bank statements and IP logs were collected and examined. Co- accused persons namely Lateur Singh Meena, Sunil Sharma,