IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Date of uploading: 11.02.2026 Vikrant Singh ....Petitioner V/s U.T. Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T. Chandigarh.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.92 dated 28.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS 2023, at Police Station Cybercrime, Chandigarh.

2. The gravamen of the case reflects that the instant FIR has been registered on the complaint of complainant-Yogesh Kumar, who alleged that he had availed a business loan from Home Credit Company for a period of five years. It is alleged that he subsequently received a call from mobile number 9026634340, wherein the caller introduced himself as an executive of Home Credit Company and informed the complainant that in order to modify the loan repayment tenure, he was required to first clear the outstanding loan amount. Believing the caller to be genuine, the complainant transferred a total sum of ₹4,61,280/- in multiple transactions through a payment link sent to him via WhatsApp from mobile number 9936687134. It is further alleged that the accused persons, on the pretext of altering the loan repayment period, dishonestly induced the complainant to transfer the aforesaid amount and thereby cheated him. Upon these of allegations, the instant FIR came to be registered against the accused person.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is himself a victim, as his bank account has been used as a mule account. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that in any case investigation qua the FIR in question is complete and challan stands presented. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, sought for dismissal of the petition in hand. He seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 10.02.2026, 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 26.09.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 12.11.2025. Total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which only two have been examined till date. It is not in dispute that the conclusion of trial will take long time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give 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 evidence.

Further, as per custody certificate dated 10.02.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 4 months and 18 days & is not shown to be shown to be involved in FIR/case.

Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However