228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kapil Nagpal ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Date of Uploading: 09.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

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.63 dated 20.09.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 61(2), 3(5) & 241 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), Section 66-C, 66-D & 75 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’) and Section 42(3) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023, at Cyber Crime Police Station, Kurukshetra.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that ASI Isham Singh (No.23) reported that on 19.09.2025, while he was present at the police station, he received secret information that an illegal call centre was being operated on the first floor above Baker’s Lounge, located on Ladwa–Indri Road near the Central Bank of India, Ladwa. It was disclosed that the call centre was involved in cheating individuals in India and abroad, and that a timely raid could lead to the arrest of the culprits. A raiding party was constituted, and during the raid, 11 boys were found engaged in cheating foreign nationals using Eye-Beam and Zoiper software. Rohit Malhotra and others present at the spot were unable to produce any licence or documentation authorizing the operation of the call centre. They informed the police that the 11 boys worked there and that the owner of the call centre was Nikhil, a resident of Delhi, who had taken the premises on rent. Acting on Nikhil’s instructions, they contacted people and obtained their personal and banking details by falsely claiming that drugs had been found in parcels addressed to them, and this information was used to commit cyber fraud. The call centre was being operated under the direction and control of Nikhil, resident of Delhi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 04.11.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner was called upon to join investigation in terms of Section 353 of BNSS 2023, wherein the petitioner voluntarily came to join and cooperate therein, but the petitioner was arrested. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that the prime prosecution evidence available against the petitioner is in the form of disclosure statement of co-accused Nikhil, which is not likely to be withstand judicial scrutiny.

Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature, and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated

07.02.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record.

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

6. The petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2025, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan has been presented on 18.11.2025. Total 23 prosecution witnesses have been cited and culmination of the trial will, indubitably, take long time. The rival contentions raised at Bar given rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon 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 trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution