Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nitin Sharma @ Nitish Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 12 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-50582-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50582-2024
Reserved on: 04.11.2024
Pronounced on: 12.11.2024
Nitin Sharma @ Nitish Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. A.S.Nirmaan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
0033 15.09.2023 Cyber Crime Ballabgarh, 386, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,
District Faridabad, 120-B, 201, 204 IPC
Haryana
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking
regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 9 of the bail application, the accused has the following criminal
antecedents:
Sr. FIR Date Offenses Police Station
No No.
1 23 06.03.2024 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, Cyber Crime, Ballabgarh,
201 and 204 IPC Faridabad
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:
"3. That the brief facts of the present case are that a
complaint was submitted by Ruchi Kumari alleging therein that on
05.09.2023, she had received a call on her mobile phone no.
9716127568, from mobile no. 7718831693. The caller disclosed
himself as Kartikey and told that he is calling from Fed Ex
Company, Mumbai, and also told that her parcel that was to be
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-50582-2024
dispatched from Mumbai to Taiwan, had been cancelled and
transferred the call to customer care. The complainant told them
that she had not sent any parcel, to which they informed that it
was possible that her Aadhar Card number might have been
linked since the parcel was in her name only and the Mumbai
Police had stopped the parcelat Customs. The parcel was
containing some clothes, five Passports, five Credit Cards of SBI,
one Laptop and 650 grams of MDMA (i.e. a contraband). It was
informed that the FIR has also been registered against her and in
case, she had nothing to do with the aforesaid luggage, she had to
obtain Clearance from Mumbai Crime Branch. Thereafter, she
was made to talk to a man who claimed to be an official of
Mumbai Crime Branch, and disclosed the Aadhar Card, to her,
while alsotelling her that a lot of illegal activities were going on in
context with her Aadhar Card and that her Aadhar Card was
alsohaving links with terrorist activities. She was asked to contact
them on Telegram and Skype and her photograph was taken,
illegally on Skype and threatened to send them money if she
wanted to do away with the case as they were linked with terrorist
activities also. As a result, she transferred total amount of Rs.
16,23,562/- under fear in the bank account number
0865002100019514 of PNB. Prayer was made for taking legal
action. Thereupon, the above mentioned FIR No. 33 dated
15.09.2023 u/s 386, 419, 420, 120-B IPC (Later on added Section
467, 468, 471, 201, 204 IPC) was registered at P.S. Cyber Crime,
Ballabgarh, Faridabad."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report,
which read as follows:
"9. That the role of the petitioner Nitin Sharma in the
present case is that he had obtained the 'Yes Bank current
account of Dewan Cargo from his co-accused and the petitioner
had further provided the same to one girl named Ashmi in
Jaipuron commission basis. In the said account, the amount of
Rs. 3,48,000/- was transferred from the account of Imran
Telecom which was provided by accused Rahees Ahmed Khande.
At the time of the present occurrence, the sim card registered with
the above mentioned current account was being used by the
petitioner. The petitioner has got recovered Rs. 4,000/- out of his
share of the amount of fraud. He has also got recovered two
mobile phones along with two sim cards used in the present
crime i.e. for WhatsApp chats and for registering in the bank
account. The petitioner has got also recovered four PAN cards,
four Adhaar Cards, three voter cards, two bank related pages, ten
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-50582-2024
debit cards, one mobile phone, two sim cards and one laptop
used in other crimes."
7. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged
crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction
sentencing. Per paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since
02.03.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 04.11.2024, the petitioner's total custody in
this FIR is 08 months and 03 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial
custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other
factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration
at this stage.
8. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
9. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest
Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
10. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the
following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
11. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
12. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
13. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-50582-2024
14. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
15. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
12.11.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
