[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sunny vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 10 December, 2025

                                                                              1

CRM-
CRM-M-61741-
      61741-2025




231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                             CRM-
                             CRM-M-61741-
                                   61741-2025

Sunny
                                                                   ....Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh
                                                                 ...Respondent

Date of decision: December 10,
                           10, 2025
Date of Uploading: December 10, 2025

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:-
Present:     Mr. Manjot Singh Gujral, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Viren Sibal, APP for the respondent
                                          respondent-U.T., Chandigarh.

                                     *****

SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS BNSS') for grant of regular bail to

the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.41 No dated 19.04.2025, registered for the

offences ences punishable under Sections Section 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and

61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') 'BNS'), at Police Station

Cyber er Crime, Sector-17, Sector Chandigarh.

2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that a

written complaint dated 17.12.2024 was submitted by the complainant, namely,

Snigdha Reddy, to the SHO, Cyber Crime, Sector 17, Chandigarh, regarding an

incident of cyber fraud. She stated that while searching for an online part part-time time

1 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-61741- 61741-2025

job, she received a WhatsApp message from the number +91-9142259412. She

was informed that the job involved increasing likes on online videos and was

subsequently added to a Telegram group where similar tasks were assigned.

After completing a few such tasks, she received some payment and was assured

of further profits. She initially invested a small amount of ₹1,000 and received

₹1,300 in return. Thereafter, she was pressured into making larger transactions.

In order to avoid losing her invested amount, she made multiple transfers from

her SBI and HDFC Bank accounts. It was alleged that she ultimately

transferred a total amount of ₹10,99,520/- from her accounts to the fraudsters.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is

in custody since 30.05.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel

has further iterated that investigation into the FIR, in any case, is complete and

culmination of the trial will take long. Learned counsel has further argued that

last transaction alleged to have taken place is of 17.12.2024 whereas, the FIR in

question was registered on 19.04.2025 and gap between two is inexplicable.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean

antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh seeks to

place on record custody certificate dated 09.12.2025 as also status report by

way of a short affidavit dated 08.12.2025 on behalf of the respondent, in the

Court today, which are taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with

the status report, learned counsel for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh has

opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in

nature and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular

bail.

2 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-61741- 61741-2025

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the

available records of the case.

Before delving into the matter further, it would be germane to

refer herein the case law governing the issue in hand:

5.1 Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT

429, relevant whereof reads as under:

"10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution."

3 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-61741- 61741-2025

5.2. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as

Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as

under:

"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end."

5.3 Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as

Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un- convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."

6. The petitioner was arrested on 30.05.2025 whereinafter

investigation was carried out and challan has been presented on 27.08.2025.

Total 10 prosecution witnesses have been cited and it is not in dispute before

this Court, that none prosecution witness has been examined till date. It is, thus

indubitable that culmination of the trial will take its own time. The rival

contention raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall essentially 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

4 of 6

CRM-

CRM-M-61741- 61741-2025

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.

6.1. As per custody certificate dated 09.12.2025 filed by learned State

counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 06

months and 10 days, & is not shown to be involved in any other FIR(s).

Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is

not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is

ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition

to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the

petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.