Prolonged Incarceration and Lack of Tangible Evidence Grounds for Bail in Cyber Fraud Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Cyber Fraud Case Citing Prolonged Incarceration

Sonipat, Haryana – The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Dharmender Kumar , who was arrested in a cyber fraud case registered under FIR No. 12 dated 15.05.2023 at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Sonipat. The case involves offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

Case Overview

The FIR, based on a complaint, alleges that unknown individuals cheated and defrauded the complainant of ₹2,55,500/- through deceptive online activities. Dharmender Kumar was arrested on May 25, 2023, and has been in custody since. The prosecution presented its challan on October 18, 2023, citing 16 prosecution witnesses, of whom only one has been examined to date.

Arguments Presented

Advocate Amit Kumar Goyal, representing the petitioner, argued for bail based on the prolonged incarceration of his client (since May 2023) and the lack of tangible evidence presented by the prosecution to directly implicate Dharmender Kumar . It was contended that the money trail was not convincingly linked to the petitioner, and individuals allegedly involved in the money trail remain unarraigned.

The State, represented by Mr. Karan Garg , AAG, Haryana, opposed the bail petition, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations.

Court's Observations and Reasoning

Justice (Name not decipherable from text) of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the bail petition. The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations but emphasized several crucial factors:

• Prolonged Custody: The petitioner had already been incarcerated for over one year, ten months, and seven days as per the custody certificate dated 26.03.2025. The court noted that the trial's culmination would inevitably take considerable time.
• Debatable Issues: The court recognized the rival contentions raised by both parties presented debatable issues that would be properly addressed during the trial. It refrained from deep diving into these at the bail stage to avoid prejudicing the trial.
• No Flight Risk or Evidence Tampering Concerns: The court observed the absence of tangible evidence suggesting the petitioner was likely to abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence.
• Antecedents vs. Present Case Merits: While acknowledging the petitioner’s involvement in another FIR, the court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. State of Bihar and a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Laloo Yadav v. State of Bihar , to underscore that prior criminal antecedents alone cannot be sufficient to deny bail if a case for bail is otherwise made out based on the facts and circumstances of the current FIR. The court also referred to its own judgments in Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi v. State of Punjab and Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab .

The court stated, "Suffice to say further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

Decision and Conditions for Bail

Ultimately, the court allowed the petition and ordered Dharmender Kumar 's release on regular bail, subject to him furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. Furthermore, the court imposed several conditions to ensure the petitioner's cooperation with the legal process and prevent any misuse of bail, including:

• Not misusing the liberty granted.
• Not tampering with evidence.
• Regular court appearances.
• Not committing further offences while on bail.
• Deposit of passport, if any.
• Sharing and maintaining an active cellphone number with the Investigating Officer and SHO.
• Not delaying the trial.

The court clarified that any breach of these conditions would allow the State/complainant to seek cancellation of bail. The judgment explicitly stated that observations made are not an expression of opinion on the case's merits.

Implications: This judgment reinforces the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention should be an exception, not the rule, especially when trial delays are anticipated and there is no concrete evidence of flight risk or evidence tampering. It also highlights that while antecedents are a factor, they cannot overshadow the merits of a bail application in the specific case at hand.