CRM-M-23897- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (230) MUKUL STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Mr. Surender Singh, Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. under Sections 318(4), 143 short “BNS”) (Section 66D of the IT Act added later on) Manesar, District Gurugram. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant Sachin Kumar Yogesh had represented to his brother Kapil that he worked in Thailand and could also provide a job to the complainant and -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Govind Mor, Advocate and Mr. Surender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.316 dated 20.11.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 143(2) and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for (Section 66D of the IT Act added later on) Manesar, District Gurugram. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant Sachin Kumar, all Yogesh had represented to his brother Kapil that he worked in Thailand and could also provide a job to the complainant and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23897-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.07.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Advocate for the petitioner petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 316 dated 20.11.2025 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for (Section 66D of the IT Act added later on) at Police Station Cyber The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint alleging therein that the accused Yogesh had represented to his brother Kapil that he worked in Thailand and could also provide a job to the complainant and also that there was a vacancy in (O&M) 2026 .. Petitioner ...Respondent petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section for grant 316 dated 20.11.2025 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for at Police Station Cyber The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint eging therein that the accused Yogesh had represented to his brother Kapil that he worked in Thailand and that there was a vacancy in AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.08 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-23897- the warehouse of a company situated near Myanmar border and the work doing scanning/data entry was to be done. He also allured that he could get the brother of complainant told the complainant and his brother that his friend Sandeep used to work as an agent. On being so induced, the complainant contacted accused Sandeep who by representing himself as a provider of job placement services abroad, assured a job to him. On his asking, the complainant went to Thailand on arrival visa on 14.10.2025. Accused Sandeep sent and, thereafter, by transferring him into several vehicles and passing through dense forest and after crossing a river, he was taken to some place. Realizing that something wrong was going on, the complainant t brought him there to let him go back to the Airport and that he was not willing to work. However, he was forcibly taken to a place and was told that he was sold to a Chinese company for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and would be able to go back, if the aforementioned amount was paid. The complainant informed hi brother Kapil about this fact and on asking of accused Yogesh and Sandeep, his brother transferred an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from various bank accounts details of which were given kept there and was being trained to use online software for the purpose of committing cyber fraud despite his resistance. Even his phone was snatched. In November, 2025, the Thailand Army came to the pl and freed him from there. He was sent back to India on 18.11.2025. By alleging that he was held hostage and was forced to do wrong acts of cyber crime, he prayed for taking action in the matter. -2026 (O&M) 2 the warehouse of a company situated near Myanmar border and the work doing scanning/data entry was to be done. He also allured that he could get the brother of complainant a job there on monthly salary told the complainant and his brother that his friend Sandeep used to work as an ng so induced, the complainant contacted accused Sandeep who by representing himself as a provider of job placement services abroad, assured a job to him. On his asking, the complainant went to Thailand on arrival visa on 14.10.2025. Accused Sandeep sent some person to pick him up from the Airport thereafter, by transferring him into several vehicles and passing through dense forest and after crossing a river, he was taken to some place. Realizing that something wrong was going on, the complainant t brought him there to let him go back to the Airport and that he was not willing to work. However, he was forcibly taken to a place and was told that he was sold to a Chinese company for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and would be able to go ack, if the aforementioned amount was paid. The complainant informed hi brother Kapil about this fact and on asking of accused Yogesh and Sandeep, his brother transferred an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from various bank accounts details of which were given by the above-named accused. He was still forcibly kept there and was being trained to use online software for the purpose of committing cyber fraud despite his resistance. Even his phone was snatched. In November, 2025, the Thailand Army came to the pl and freed him from there. He was sent back to India on 18.11.2025. By alleging that he was held hostage and was forced to do wrong acts of cyber crime, he prayed for taking action in the matter. the warehouse of a company situated near Myanmar border and the work of doing scanning/data entry was to be done. He also allured that he could get the a job there on monthly salary of Rs.80,000/-. He also told the complainant and his brother that his friend Sandeep used to work as an ng so induced, the complainant contacted accused Sandeep who by representing himself as a provider of job placement services abroad, assured a job to him. On his asking, the complainant went to Thailand on arrival visa on some person to pick him up from the Airport thereafter, by transferring him into several vehicles and passing through dense forest and after crossing a river, he was taken to some place. Realizing that something wrong was going on, the complainant told the persons who had brought him there to let him go back to the Airport and that he was not willing to work. However, he was forcibly taken to a place and was told that he was sold to a Chinese company for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and would be able to go ack, if the aforementioned amount was paid. The complainant informed his brother Kapil about this fact and on asking of accused Yogesh and Sandeep, his brother transferred an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from various bank accounts, the named accused. He was still forcibly kept there and was being trained to use online software for the purpose of committing cyber fraud despite his resistance. Even his phone was snatched. In November, 2025, the Thailand Army came to the place, wherein he was kept and freed him from there. He was sent back to India on 18.11.2025. By alleging that he was held hostage and was forced to do wrong acts of cyber of doing scanning/data entry was to be done. He also allured that he could get the . He also told the complainant and his brother that his friend Sandeep used to work as an ng so induced, the complainant contacted accused Sandeep who by representing himself as a provider of job placement services abroad, assured a job to him. On his asking, the complainant went to Thailand on arrival visa on some person to pick him up from the Airport thereafter, by transferring him into several vehicles and passing through dense forest and after crossing a river, he was taken to some place. Realizing old the persons who had brought him there to let him go back to the Airport and that he was not willing to work. However, he was forcibly taken to a place and was told that he was sold to a Chinese company for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and would be able to go s brother Kapil about this fact and on asking of accused Yogesh and Sandeep, his the named accused. He was still forcibly kept there and was being trained to use online software for the purpose of committing cyber fraud despite his resistance. Even his phone was snatched. In wherein he was kept and freed him from there. He was sent back to India on 18.11.2025. By alleging that he was held hostage and was forced to do wrong acts of cyber AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.08 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-23897- 3. After registration of FIR, inv The accused Sandeep was arrested on 22.11.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and also stated that he had transferred an amount of Rs.3,90,000/ of the petitioner and had also paid Thailand currency of 3,000/ Mukul for the same. The petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested on the same day. He too s disclosure statement Sandeep got recovered the amount of Rs.3,90,000/ complainant. Subsequently accused Yogesh was also arrested. Investigation now stands concluded. 4. It is argued by learned co falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He has been implicated only on account of the fact that the a was credited into his bank account. In fact, it was on the asking of the accused Sandeep that he had allowed transfer of this amount into his bank account and the same very amount already stands returned to the complainant. Mere tr of the aforementioned amount into his bank account does not constitute any offence against him as there is no material on record to show that he had any knowledge about the fact that the said amount was received from the complainant side by committi Rather the accused his own bank account had been -2026 (O&M) 3 After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Sandeep was arrested on 22.11.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and also stated that he had transferred an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- of the complainant in the ba of the petitioner and had also paid Thailand currency of 3,000/ for the same. The petitioner was nominated as an accused and was arrested on the same day. He too suffered disclosure statement. Subsequent ement were also recorded by him Sandeep got recovered the amount of Rs.3,90,000/ complainant. Subsequently accused Yogesh was also arrested. Investigation now stands concluded. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He has been implicated only on account of the fact that the a was credited into his bank account. In fact, it was on the asking of the accused Sandeep that he had allowed transfer of this amount into his bank account and the same very amount already stands returned to the complainant. Mere tr of the aforementioned amount into his bank account does not constitute any offence against him as there is no material on record to show that he had any knowledge about the fact that the said amount was received from the complainant side by committing cyber fraud or he had any intention to do so. Rather the accused-Sandeep, who is his acquaintance, had represented him that his own bank account had been frozen and requested him estigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Sandeep was arrested on 22.11.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and also stated that he had of the complainant in the bank account of the petitioner and had also paid Thailand currency of 3,000/- Thai Baht to the for the same. The petitioner was nominated as an accused and was uffered disclosure statement. Subsequent by him on 26.11.2025. The accused Sandeep got recovered the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- belonging to the complainant. Subsequently accused Yogesh was also arrested. Investigation unsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co- accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He has been implicated only on account of the fact that the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- was credited into his bank account. In fact, it was on the asking of the accused Sandeep that he had allowed transfer of this amount into his bank account and the same very amount already stands returned to the complainant. Mere transfer of the aforementioned amount into his bank account does not constitute any offence against him as there is no material on record to show that he had any knowledge about the fact that the said amount was received from the ng cyber fraud or he had any intention to do so. Sandeep, who is his acquaintance, had represented him that and requested him to allow temporary estigation proceedings were initiated. The accused Sandeep was arrested on 22.11.2025. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and also stated that he had nk account Thai Baht to the for the same. The petitioner was nominated as an accused and was uffered disclosure statement. Subsequent on 26.11.2025. The accused belonging to the complainant. Subsequently accused Yogesh was also arrested. Investigation unsel for the petitioner that he has been - accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He - was credited into his bank account. In fact, it was on the asking of the accused Sandeep that he had allowed transfer of this amount into his bank account and ansfer of the aforementioned amount into his bank account does not constitute any offence against him as there is no material on record to show that he had any knowledge about the fact that the said amount was received from the ng cyber fraud or he had any intention to do so. Sandeep, who is his acquaintance, had represented him that to allow temporary AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.08 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-23897- transfer which was done in good faith and on trust. T since 22.11.2025 all attracted against him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His antecedents are purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, thus, urged that he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the serious in nature. He was an active participant in the commission of subject offences which amount to commission of cyber fraud. His active complicity in the crime stands established. There are chances of his abscon committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner does not deserve to be allowed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The petitioner is alleged alleged to be involved in the work of committing cyber fraud by finding customers from USA and cheating and defrauding them. As per the allegations, he was in contact with the accused San transfer of an amount of Rs.3,90,000/ the said amount to co assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any co the petitioner’s committing the offence of cheating can be drawn. It is a -2026 (O&M) 4 transfer which was done in good faith and on trust. T 22.11.2025. The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not at all attracted against him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His antecedents are purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, thus, urged that he deserves to be released on bail. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has vehemently argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was an active participant in the commission of subject offences which amount to commission of cyber fraud. His active complicity in the crime stands established. There are chances of his abscon committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to be residing in Myanm alleged to be involved in the work of committing cyber fraud by finding customers from USA and cheating and defrauding them. As per the allegations, he was in contact with the accused Sandeep and on his asking, had allowed transfer of an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- to his bank account and had handed over the said amount to co-accused Sandeep. It is only on the basis of through assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any co the petitioner’s committing the offence of cheating can be drawn. It is a transfer which was done in good faith and on trust. The petitioner is in custody . The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not at all attracted against him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. His antecedents are clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, thus, urged Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was an active participant in the commission of subject offences which amount to commission of cyber fraud. His active complicity in the crime stands established. There are chances of his absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioner does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel to be residing in Myanmar. He is also alleged to be involved in the work of committing cyber fraud by finding customers from USA and cheating and defrauding them. As per the allegations, deep and on his asking, had allowed to his bank account and had handed over accused Sandeep. It is only on the basis of through assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any conclusion as to the petitioner’s committing the offence of cheating can be drawn. It is a he petitioner is in custody . The ingredients for commission of subject offences are not at all attracted against him. He is not required for further investigation. The trial clean. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, thus, urged Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was an active participant in the commission of subject offences which amount to commission of cyber fraud. His active complicity in ding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel ar. He is also alleged to be involved in the work of committing cyber fraud by finding customers from USA and cheating and defrauding them. As per the allegations, deep and on his asking, had allowed to his bank account and had handed over accused Sandeep. It is only on the basis of through nclusion as to the petitioner’s committing the offence of cheating can be drawn. It is a AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.08 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-23897- debatable question as to whether the ingredients for commission punishable under Section 143(1) of BNS are attracted qua him at all or not? The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. He is in custody since 22.11.2025. The trial will take considerable time to con been examined so far. and jail is an except conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. consideration the above discussed facts, that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 9. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 08.07.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 debatable question as to whether the ingredients for commission punishable under Section 143(1) of BNS are attracted qua him at all or not? The of the petitioner are clean. He is in custody since 22.11.2025. The trial will take considerable time to conclude since no prosecution witn been examined so far. The well settled proposition and jail is an exception. Pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of post conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. the above discussed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. Since the main petition has been all any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No debatable question as to whether the ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 143(1) of BNS are attracted qua him at all or not? The of the petitioner are clean. He is in custody since 22.11.2025. The clude since no prosecution witness has proposition of law is that bail is the rule trial incarceration should not be replica of post- conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the accused during trial, and it cannot be preventive or punitive. Taking into his Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No ce punishable under Section 143(1) of BNS are attracted qua him at all or not? The of the petitioner are clean. He is in custody since 22.11.2025. The ess has of law is that bail is the rule - conviction sentencing. The object of the jail is to secure appearance of the Taking into his Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the released on bail subject to satisfaction of the learned It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.08 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.