111+223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Devi Lal ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of decision: December 02, 2025 Date of Uploading: December 02, 2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Randhir S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.4 dated 25.02.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 238(B), 318(4), 61(2) & 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), at Police Station Mahendergarh.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to an incident in which the complainant, namely, Brahm Prakash, son of Sh. Gajanan, resident of village Koriawas, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh alleged that on 15.02.2025, while he was watering the fields, received a phone call on his mobile number. The caller introduced himself as the complainant’s acquaintance and informed him that one of his associates was admitted in a hospital. The caller further stated that his hospital fees could not be paid from his own account and that the amount would be transferred into the complainant’s account and requested the complainant to make the payment. Thereafter, the complainant received a message indicating that the money had been credited to his account. Believing the words of the caller, the complainant transferred a total of Rs.90,000/- from his AU Bank account linked to his mobile number to the caller mobile number and some other numbers as instructed. However, upon checking the bank account later, the complainant realized that no money had actually been credited. Instead, the said amount had been debited from his account. When the complainant tried to contact the caller for clarification, he neither answered the calls of the complainant nor responded and later switched off his phone. Realizing that he had been cheated, the complainant immediately lodged a complaint on the cybercrime helpline number 1930. Thereafter, the complainant submitted a written complaint to the police station alleging therein that an unknown person, by impersonating as his acquaintance and by fraudulent misrepresentation, had cheated him of Rs.90,000/- and the instant FIR came to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the instant case. A bare perusal of the FIR in question would show that the petitioner has not been named therein. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant has alleged that on 15.02.2025, while working in his fields, he received a call from one mobile number and was duped by transferring a sum of Rs.90,000/- from his AU bank account to the said number and other accounts. According to learned counsel, the petitioner himself is a victim of fraud played by co- accused as the petitioner had been given false assurance of providing job; and accordingly, said co-accused got opened a bank account in the petitioner’s name, but the SIM connected with the said account was being used by the said co-accused—his bank account was accordingly misused. Furthermore, neither any direct role of the petitioner has been established nor has any recovery been effected from him. According to learned counsel, the challan has already been submitted and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.05.2025 and keeping him further incarcerated would serve no useful purpose particularly when the trial is likely to take long time. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of instant petition is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned Stat