IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 Decided on: 14.01.2025 Vishnu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

33 07.12.2023 Cyber Crime, 379 & 420 IPC (180 & 120-B District Hisar IPC added subsequently)

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that one more FIR is pending against the petitioner.

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply dated 06.12.2024, filed by the State, which reads as follows:

“3. That briefly the facts of the case are that on 02.10.2023, a complaint was filed by the complainant namely Naresh Kumar resident of District Hisar on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (hereinafter referred as NCCR Portal), wherein it is stated by the complainant that on 28.09.2023, he received a call from mobile No. 96410-xxxxx and the caller informed the complainant that his name is Suresh Kumar and he is calling on behalf of "Rajkot Electricity Office, Gujarat." The caller further asked the complainant that his electricity bill is due and if the complainant did not pay it, then the Electricity connection of the complainant will be disconnected. At the same time, caller Suresh Kumar sent a link to the mobile number of the complainant from his another mobile No. 98259- xxxxx and asked to pay Rs.3/- once by clicking on the given link. When the complainant opened the link and tried to make payment of Rs.3/- then Rs.2,10,012/- was deducted from his account No. 502000767xxxxx of HDFC Bank in the first instance, then Rs.1,11,940/-, Rs.49,999/-, Rs.49,975/- and at last Rs.49,991/- from his aforesaid account. On the same day another amount of Rs.27,663/- was deducted from the HDFC Bank account No.249925600xxxxx of the complainant. In this way total amount of Rs.4,99,580/- was deducted from his account and he sought legal action against the accused persons for cheating him for the aforesaid amount.”

4. Petitioner’s counsel submits that during investigation the main accused Sandeep (now on regular bail) was arrested, who in his disclosure statement named the petitioner to also have been involved. He further submits that the State in their reply, had concealed the fact that none of the mobile number used in the commission of the offence belonged to the petitioner and no money came in the bank account of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of any money and only substantive piece of evidence brought on record by the police that the petitioner and main accused Sandeep were constantly in contact and there is nothing to show the complicity of petitioner even remotely with the alleged occurrence. Even the reply fails to mention that if the cash amount was wrongfully gained by the petitioner then what was the quantum of the duped amount wrongfully gained by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel further 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 latest reply dated 06.12.2024, filed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar.

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

“5. That during the course of the investigation of the case record of the bank account of the complainant was obtained and on perusal of the same it transpired that an amount of Rs.2,10,012/- & Rs.1,11,940/- were transferred through Billdesk into the account of Uttar Pardesh Power Corporation Limited from the Bank Account of complainant. Rs. 49,999/, 49,975/- and 49,991/- were transferred into Indusind