[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Himanshu Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana on 22 April, 2026
CRM-M No.12917 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224
*****
CRM-M No.12917 of 2026
Date of decision : 22.4.2026
Date of uploading : 22.4.2026
Himanshu Chaudhary .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Ashish Tyagi, Advocate (through VC) and
Mr. Akun Sheemar, Advocate, for the petitioner
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, 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.167 dated 21.6.2025 under
Sections 318(4), 319 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 3(5) of
BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Cyber South, District
Gurugram.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is
actively involved in fraudulent transactions through electronic media to
the tune of Rs. 59,60,000/- out of which Rs. 90,000/- have been received
in his bank account bearing No.20100044962650 maintained at Bandhan
Bank. Against the said bank account, 35 other complaints of cyber crime
are pending at the National Cyber Crime Portal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
is in custody since 20.7.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as he was
merely helping the FIR-complainant side. Learned counsel has further
argued that the petitioner has received merely ₹90,000/- in his account.
Thus, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of
Priyanshu Deewan, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber,
Gurugram dated 27.3.2026, which is on record. Raising submissions in
tandem with the said reply, 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
4.4.2026 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 20.7.2025 wherein after
investigation was carried out; challan was prepared on 11.12.2025 and
subsequently filed. Charges in the present case were framed on
13.4.2026. Total 14 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 at Bar 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.
6.1 As per custody certificate dated 4.4.2026 filed by learned State
counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 5
months and 21 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is
stated to be involved in 3 more cases/FIRs. 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
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
22.4.2026
Ashwanii
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
