[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Umesh Kumar Garg vs State Of Haryana on 10 April, 2026

           CRM-M-7904-2026




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH


           110                                            CRM-M-7904-2026
                                                          Date of decision: 10.04.2026



            UMESH KUMAR GARG

                                                                                  ......PETITIONER

                                                              Versus



            STATE OF HARYANA
                                                                       .       ..... RESPONDENT



           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present:            Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate &
                                Mr. Vardaan Seth, Advocate
                                for the petitioner.

                                Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana

                                Mr. Yaman, Advocate
                                for the complainant.

                                      *****


           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner

under Section 483 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. This

petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.367 dated

04.10.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4),

61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Cyber East, District

Gurugram.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

CRM-M-7904-2026

this case came into being at the instance of 'Vijay Grover', hereinafter being

referred to as 'complainant' only. In his complaint addressed to Cyber Crime,

Police Station East, Gurugram, it was alleged by the complainant that he was

subjected to a cyber fraud in the name of investment, and that he lost a sum of

Rs.71,79,000/- on account of above-said fraud. According to complainant he

had received a facebook link in the name of '360 ONE', and that after clicking

on the above-mentioned link he was made a member of a group and his trading

account was created in the name of 'Fin Vault Pro'. As per complainant

subsequently his account was opened in the bank' and that he invested money

through above-mentioned account, but later on found that the account

belonged to the fraudster.

3. It is the case of the prosecution on the basis of above-mentioned

complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and further investigation taken

up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation it transpired

that the account, wherein the money was received, belonged to the co-accused,

namely 'Ashish Goyal', and that the same was being operated by his wife

'Dolly Goyal'. It has been further alleged by the prosecution that in the

investigation, it has also been revealed that the above-mentioned account was

provided by the petitioner to the co-accused 'Lakshay Nanda' and in that

regard a disclosure statement was suffered by the co-accused, namely 'Ashish

Goyal'.

4. Status report and custody certificate have been filed by learned

State counsel. The same be taken on record.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

CRM-M-7904-2026

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the offence

is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, for which the maximum

punishment prescribed under the law is seven years. It has also been contented

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already in custody

for a period of more than three and half months, and nothing has been left to be

recovered from the possession of petitioner.

7. The learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for

the complainant has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According

to learned counsel for the complainant in the present case the fraud, to which

the petitioner has been subjected to, is to the tune of Rs.71,79,000/-, and that

out of above-mentioned money only Rs.3,10,000/- has been recovered so far,

despite the fact that the money transacted through bank accounts. The learned

counsel for the complainant has also contended that the offence is serious in

nature, and if released on bail, there are chances that the petitioner may misuse

the same.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are

the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a

decision: -

i) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

ii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment up to seven years:

iii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three and half months;

iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner.

CRM-M-7904-2026

v) that against the petitioner the only evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is disclosure statement of co-accused. There is a question mark with regard to admissibility of above- mentioned disclosure statement as the same was recorded when the co-accused was already in custody and pursuant to above- mentioned disclosure statement nothing incriminating has been recovered;

vi) that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and there is no documentary evidence to show that any part of proceed of crime was received by the petitioner;

vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;

viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

10. In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh

and another', (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that

"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

CRM-M-7904-2026

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. 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

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".

11. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of

India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

and Another' (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the

abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in

criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs

on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative

sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to

rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal

principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not

punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the

contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave

injustice".

12. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

has observed that "if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of

CRM-M-7904-2026

six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be

said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution

has been infringed". It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the abovementioned case that "delays are bad for the accused and

extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our

justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and

the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in

order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently".

13. 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 mandated by

Hon'ble Apex court in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another",

2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

14. If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors,

involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion

that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition

deserves to be allowed.

15. Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the

case, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to

be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be

subject to following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the

CRM-M-7904-2026

Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and