Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akash Alias Akash Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 10 November, 2025
CRM-M No.61637 of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224
*****
CRM-M No.61637 of 2025
Date of decision : 10.11.2025
Akash alias Akash Kumar .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Prashant Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.75 dated 10.3.2025 under
Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections
66-C and 66-D of Information technology Act, 2000 added later on),
registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, NIT, Faridabad, District
Faridabad.
2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present
petition by the petitioner) is as follows:-
'TO, The SHO Cyber Crime Branch NIT, Faridabad. Subject: Report of.
Cyber Crime. Sir, I, Nihal Singh, S/o Sh. Sita Ram Sharma R/o House No.
64, Gali No. 2, Párvatiya Colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana, am here to
bring to your notice a case of cyber fraud cheating with me. I, own and
maintain a mobile No.9818021040 and having a Facebook Account Nihal
1 of 5
Singh linkediththismobilenumber. While surfing on my Facebook account
I. found a group namely 'Live High-Profile Life, who pretended themselves
as advisors for share market trading. As soon as I clicked the option, I
became member of the group. The admin person narrated me their nature
of business and tried getting me involved in the business, but I denied.
Another day I got a WhatsApp message from one Ms, Astha Sharma
mobile No.8889706962, who lured me to get involved in the business,
upon her lures, I agreed to start the business with Rs.5000/-, They shared
a link to me for opening a trading account. Upon filling information and
bank details, my account got created in Angel Bloc named application. As
soon as I transferred Rs.5000/- in their account on 28.01.2025, the same
amount started reflecting in my account. As the time passed, my
transactions got increased and the value was getting nurtured. Gradually
they attained my faith by allowing disbursals of Rs. 1000/-and Rs.5000/-at
different times. A number of times, I transferred sum to their account
which collecting showing in my trading application. From 28.01.2025 to
24.02.2025 I transferred a total sum of Rs. 29,06,400/-. The application is
showing a sum of Rs.1,56,57,053/- as my principal amount and trading
profit thereupon. On 25.02.2025, when I tried getting the amount
transferred in my bank account, the application denied. I tried my level
best but of no avail. A detailed discussion held with Ms. Anita Rivera
9910587169 (Only WhatsApp Number), Assistant of Group Head Mr.
Dinesh Thakkar (Mobile No.7225902453 (Only WhatsApp Number),
whereby she demanded 20% of the entire profit as their commission.
Whereas, as such no term was decided well before initializing the work, I
smelt some foul smell of their mala-fide intention. On my hard perusal,
they stopped all the options of withdrawal and are bent upon to fetch 20%
of profit on my account. On my further persuasion, they denied any
amount to me. This is a group of cyber fraudsters who are now eloped
with my principal amount of Rs. 29,06,400/-, You are, therefore, requested
to kindly initiate probe into the matter and get the culprit behind bars and
get my hard-earned money back at the earliest. I shall be highly thankful
to you, yours hopefully, Nihal Singh 9818021040 Note: The above web
link has been deleted now and is not showing anywhere SD/-Nihal Singh.'
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 29.3.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the
2 of 5
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as he was
merely advising the FIR-complainant to invest in the stock/share market.
Learned counsel has submitted that the investigation qua the FIR is
already complete and thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel 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. Learned
State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 8.11.2025
in Court, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 29.3.2025 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 15.5.2025.
Total 9 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been
examined till date. It is, thus, indubitable that culmination of trial will
take its own time. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give
rise to debatable issues which shall 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 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.
As per custody certificate dated 8.11.2025 filed by learned State
counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 7
3 of 5
months and 12 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case.
However, learned State counsel has brought to the notice of this Court
that as per instructions received by him from HC Sanjay Kumar, another
case bearing FIR No.316810802500428 (Serial No.428) dated 29.6.2025,
at Police Station Nandgram, City (Commissionerate Ghaziabad), Uttar
Pradesh, is registered against the petitioner qua bank account which is
stated to have been used by the petitioner. Indubitably, the antecedents of
a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail
petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground
sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of
regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the
facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)
586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in
case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments
of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State
of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana,
1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
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
4 of 5
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 cell-phone 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.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed
hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the
State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
10.11.2025
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
