Piyush Maurya vs State Of Haryana
2026 Latest Caselaw 478 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Piyush Maurya vs State Of Haryana on 21 January, 2026

                                Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of

                    BNSS, 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.04

                    dated 30.01.2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Kaithal,

                    District Kaithal, under Sections 238(c), 318(4), 319 and 61 of BNS, 2023,

                    Sections 66, 66C and 66 D of the Information Technology Act, 200
                                                                                 2000.

                    2.          Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in

                    custody for about 5 months.
                                        mo      He alleges false implication. His name

                    surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co
                                                                  co-accused, Monu, who had

                    also named Pardeep Kumar and Sahil Behal, who have since been granted

                    bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.12.2025 and 20.01.2026, alongwith

                    Nitin and Sahib
                              Sahib Khan. The entire amount stands paid by 12 accused

PARVEEN KUMAR
2026.01.21 19:02
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
                     collectively to the complainant. Challan has been presented on

                    29.09.2025, however, charges are yet to be framed and there are, in all, 18

                    PWs. The petitioner is involved in 4 more cases wherein he is on bail.

                    Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court

                    titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others,

                    2012(2) SCC 382.

                    3.           The custody certificate dated 20.01.2026, filed by the learned

                    State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind

                    bars for 4 months and 22 days.

                    4.           Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that

                    there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having defrauded the

                    complainant by impersonation to the tune of Rs.70,384/-, but affirmed the

                    factum of return of the said amount by 12 accused. However, he is unable

                    to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the

                    petitioner being on bail in other cases and the co-accused having been

                    released on bail.

                    5.           Heard.

                    6.           Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.

                    Amir Rashadi (Supra)had held that, "As observed by the High Court,

                    merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second

                    respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to

find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged

and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the

jurisdiction of the Court, etc."

co-accused are on bail; challan stands presented on

29.09.2025 but charges have not been framed and there are total of 18

PWs;

The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail,

subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial

Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and

shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of

the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation

of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations

made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and

would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the

trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.