IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10^th February, 2026 Suresh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 18 dated 12.02.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 319(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Cyber Crime Ambala, District Ambala.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant Amit Kumar Chauhan, that he had been duped of an amount of Rs. 16,89,500/- and was made a victim of online cyber fraud by being induced to part with same, on the premise of offering him a job by working from home. Investigation proceedings were initiated. It was found that financial transactions had been made from the bank account of the complainant in different bank accounts provided by the fraudsters. Out of the bank accounts of the latter ones, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was found to be transferred in that of the present petitioner as well as co-accused. Co-accused Mangi Lal had been arrested on 20.02.2025. The petitioner was arrested on 28.02.2025 along with the co-accused Kailash Bishnoi. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Some other co-accused were also arrested. Investigation against him now stands concluded.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Trial is likely to take time to conclude. He is in custody since long. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. No recovery has been effected from him. He has clean antecedents. He is not the beneficiary to any of the transactions. His role is not central to the conspiracy allegedly hatched by the co-accused and is extremely limited. His bank account was in fact used by the co-accused for transfer of certain amounts. There has been no direct inducement of the complainant on the part of the petitioner. A single bank transaction had taken place in his bank account. The monetary harm suffered by the complainant has been redressed. The subject offences are not attracted qua him. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be released on bail.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was a part of conspiracy hatched with the co-accused and in pursuance thereof, he got transferred an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- out of the amount of money extracted from the complainant. His active participation in the offence of cheating and forgery is made out. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner along with the co-accused is alleged to have committed offence of online/cyber fraud with the complainant by duping him of huge amount of money. The petitioner prima facie appears to have played an important part as an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, out of the money extracted from the complainant, had been transferred in his account. Trial is going at a proper pace and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Crimes of this nature are on the rise and have become a growing menace in today's digital age. Cyber criminals are using sophisticated methods to target public persons and institutions. A stringent approach to deter offenders is required. The gamut of above discussed circumstances