IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vipulbhai Labhubhaii ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Date of Decision: April 27, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 27, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Ranwant Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition is the third attempt filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0005 dated 09.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 319(2), 318(4), 61(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Cyber Crime, Fazilka, District Fazilka.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question that complainant, namely, Rajinder Singh was cheated to the tune of Rs.14 lacs by one Shikhawat and one unknown person. Later on, the petitioner was apprehended since the money was transferred in his account multiple times.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 24.04.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that prime attribution of committing crime in question is against one Ashok Kumar and petitioner has been implicated, primarily, on the disclosure statement of co-accused (Jogi Tulsiram Pralahd Bhai), which is not tenable in law. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 01 year and the trial is procrastinating. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus:

“18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article

21 of the Constitution.”

Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has field short reply by way of an affidavit dated 20.04.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that 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 also seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 20.04.2026, in the Court today, wh