Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Kumar Alias Vishnu Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana on 8 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001173
CRM-M-39253-2024 -1-
218-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39253-2024
DECIDED ON: 08.01.2025
KULDEEP KUMAR ALIAS VISHNU CHAUDHARY
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG Haryana
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483
BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.16 dated
02.05.2024, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of IPC, 1860
registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Kaithal, District Kaithal, Haryana
(Annexure P-1).
2. Facts
Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"At present, a complaint number 88-NCRP dated 04.03.24 has been received
after Investigation from the office of Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, through
post at Police Station, the gist of which is as follows: - To, SHO, Police Station
Cyber Crime, Kaithal. Subject: Complaint regarding extortion of money
fraudulently against: Monica WhatsApp No.8277073522, 1.Rohit Mob. No.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001173
8967791015 and 8126674803 employees, Coin DXC Company. Sir, it is submitted
that I am Gurdev Singh, son of late. Richpal Singh, resident of Ward 5 Khurana
Road Police Station City Police Station Kaithal, District Kaithal and am
unemployed. I filed a complaint no. 21303240007904 dated 03.03.24 on NCRP
portal in which due to lack of complete details, I am separately giving full details
regarding the above complaint that, on 25.01.24, through an ad of work at home
on Instagram, I met a girl named Monica, who gave a WhatsApp number
8277073522, on which I messaged from WhatsApp number 9812922718, then I
got a message from Radhika in which it was written to talk to Coin DCX
Exchange Digital Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. India. When I chatted with
Radhika, she offered me work from home in which I would have to complete some
tasks from home, for which she gave me a link of Telegram. When I clicked on the
link, I started talking to @moniksing666 on Telegram where a girl named Monica
told me about the money investing scheme and initially got me to complete the
task of investing Rs. 1000/- on 26.01.24. Which I transferred from my account
number 78830100021056 of Bank of Baroda branch Ambala Road Kaithal
through UPI Google Pay to UP ID pawankumar012474@okicici. In which I got a
profit of Rs. 300/- and my amount became Rs1300/-. After that on 27.01.24, I
invested Rs.7,000/- which I transferred from my Google Pay to UPI ID
deeprajkaindia@oksbi. In this way I made a total of 3 other transactions of
Rs.28,600/- UPI ID OKYBBY@YBL, 50,000/- 10,000/- to UPI ID
R39621169@OKSBI. In which I was shown total profit of Rs. 1,25,000/-. On
29.01.24, I had a chat with Sandeep Singh's telegram group @Sandeep0966 in
which a total of four transactions were made from me Rs.3,000/- UPI ID:
9111778791@YBL, Rs.10,000/- UPI ID: DEEPAKNAGRAJO7-1@OKAXIS,
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/ - UPI ID : Transferred to PAVAN2221@YBL. On
30.01.24, Rohit I received a call from 8967791015 from Rohit of Coin DCX who
made me to join the Telegram group Coin DCX Customer Service where many
members were active and trading in Bitcoin. Rohit persuaded me to invest in
Bitcoin and on 30.01.24, on the saying of Rohit, I deposited Rs.2,39,140/- through
RTGS from my wife Neetu's account number 78830100021458 Bank of Baroda,
Ambala Road Kaithal, to the account number 15370100203769 IFSC code. :
FDRL0001537, deposited in Federal Bank of India account holder Mohammad
Suhaib. After this my total profit became Rs.4,78,280/-. Then on 31.01.24, I
withdrew a total of Rs.70,000/- (50,00020,000) from my above account number
1520391048796 IFSC code: JOP0000001, Jio Payment Bank and on 01.02.24
Rs.50,000/- from my wife's above account number 15203391053253 IFSC code:
JIOP0000001, deposited in Jio Payment Bank. When I tried to withdraw the said
amount on 02.02.24, they canceled it by showing me the message credit score is
less than 100 points. Then Rohit told me that your credit score is 40 points, which
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001173
you will have to increase to 100 points and you will have to purchase 60 points
for which you will have to deposit another Rs.3,60,000/-, which will later be
returned to you along with the profit he also sent me a CoinDCX letter on
Telegram. On 03.02.24 also the same letter was sent to me by a CoinDCX on
Telegram. Then I deposited a total of Rs.3,60,000/- from 03.02.24 to 06.02.24
(60,000/- UPI ID: GAFUR.8@PAYTM, 40,000/- UPI ID:
SHAIKHIRFANABI533@OKAXIS, 60,000/- UPI ID: SAIF1646@NSDL, 40,000/-
10,000/- UPI ID: SUJOY232@NSDL. After that, when I wanted to withdraw the
money, I clicked on their link and was given a notification which showed
Exceeded The Tax Exemption Limit and told that you have done different
transactions, due to which you have come under the tax net and you will have to
clear the issue of tax exemption for which you will have to deposit a total of
Rs.2,51,484/- which will later be returned to you. That on 08.02.24 from my
above account number 67027065960 IFSC code SBIN0070422, deposited
through RTGS in SBI bank account holder Arshad A. After that he told me that
while filling the form in RTGS, you did not enter the tax details in the remarks
due to which the above amount was deposited in your beneficiary account and
your profit became Rs. 10,89,764/-. Therefore, you will have to deposit 30% of
the entire amount, totaling Rs.2,94,236/-, only then you can get your money back.
Which I deposited a total of Rs.294236/- through RTGS in the name of tax
exemption from the above account given by him in the account number
10770100312228 IFSC code: FDRL0001077, Federal Bank of India account
holder Mohammad Irshad KT. Now my total profit amount is shown as
Rs.13,84,000/-. When 1 tried to withdraw the above amount, it was not
withdrawn and a notification came which said that your Rs.2,51,484/- has not
been deducted in tax. After that the above persons gave me a new task under a
scheme and asked me to trade in it, after which my total amount was shown as
Rs. 16,85,780/-. In which I was asked to deposit a total profit commission of
Rs.2,11,246/-, so I deposited a total of Rs.2,11,246/- on 12.02.24 from my account
and my wife's account (25,000/-account number 16300100116512 IFSC code:
FDRL0001630, IMPS IN FEDERAL BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT HOLDER JAY
KRISHNAN, * 50,000/ - 7 50,000/ - z 18,000/- UPI TO UPIID :
SANDEEPSAIJAAT4-1@OKICICI, * 18,246/- UPI TO UPI ID :
ROHITASHTHE@KOTAK, * 50,000/- UPI (UPI ID: POONAM4428@PAYTM).
When I again wanted to withdraw the above amount, they again made excuses
and asked me to deposit the money, then I understood the above fraud and I
refused to deposit the money and the total amount deposited by me was Rs.
15,99,706/-. When I asked to return the money, I received calls from Rohit from
mobile number 8967791015 and 8126674803 and he started threatening me to
deposit the money and when I threatened legal action, he also threatened to kill
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001173
me and on the contrary, started threatening me for legal action against me. All
the above mentioned persons, under a scheme among themselves, have cheated
me by luring me with false benefits and getting me to invest in the name of
CoinDCX, by sending fake letters, by showing fake profits, and have embezzled
my money. Legal action should be taken against the above mentioned persons
and my money should be returned. Details of the bank, screenshots of the
transaction and the fake letter are attached. SD Applicant Gurdev Singh S/o Late.
Richpal Singh resident of Ward 5 Khurana Road, Kaithal. Dated 04.03.24 On
receipt of complaint received in Police Station, Case No.16 dated 02.05.2024
Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 IPC Cyber Crime Police Station
Kaithal was registered and the copy was sent to police and original complaint for
further investigation to ASI Ravindra Kumar No. 13/ Kaithal in his Took charge.
The first information report was recorded in the presence of ASI Ravindra Kumar
No. 13/Kaithal. The special report of the case will be sent to higher officials
through email and post "
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the investigation
is complete and thereafter charges stands framed on 23.12.2024 with 10
prosecution witnesses to be examined. In addition to, he would argue that the role
attributed to the petitioner is that he gave the account number of Sandeep, which
was used for transacting the whole money. He further submits that the complainant
has already been entered into a compromise with the main accused.
On behalf of the State
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which is taken on record. He does not controvert the fact that the
compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and main accused.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has already
suffered incarceration of 6 months and 18 days and not involved in any other case,
as is evident from the perusal of the custody certificate, meaning thereby he is a
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001173
person of clean antecedents and the complainant has already settled the matter
with the main accused namely Rohit, who has been granted the concession of bail
by this Court vide order of the even date passed in CRM-M-38310-2024 added
with the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented on
12.09.2024, charges stand framed on 23.12.2024 and out of total 10 prosecution
witnesses none have been examined yet, meaning thereby conclusion of trial shall
take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would curtail right of the
petitioner for speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution of India as has been time and again discussed by this Court,
while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. Relevant paras of
the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the
fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another
important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant
of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a
prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may
wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic
principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that
more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer
periods. This does not do any good to our criminal
jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely
the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001173
exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a
large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every
High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity
to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the
right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a
case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best
opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest
an accused person during investigations, a strong case should
be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a
charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in the investigations to
the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not
absconding or not appearing when required by the
investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the
investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and
expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a
judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also
necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a
first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if
so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct.
The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also
an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken
notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft
approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by
inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted
by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a
suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001173
custody. There are several reasons for this including
maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor
that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the
Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding
in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by
this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons,
2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments
(R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered
in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE
609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that
decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State
of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was
held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924
Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931
Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the
rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is
therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision
for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail
should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is
entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter
and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised
judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately.
Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as
to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic
and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable,
fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001173
Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of
Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that
pre-conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in
view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction
and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby
directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
08.01.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
