CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28901 28901 28901 28901 123 123 123 123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sarafuddin Ayub Sheikh State of Haryana Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ to secure regular bail, under Section short ‘IPC’), 2. Rajpal Yadav, was induced by members of a WhatsApp group, namely “Sinha Wealth Institute M 100,” to invest in the share market and IPOs on the false assurance of high returns. Acting on the representations of the accused, particularly the main administrator, Nisha Gupta, the complainant downloaded the “Wells Pro App,” opened an FII account, and transferred a total sum of ₹17.50 lakhs between 09.01.2024 and 23.01.2024. Thereafter, the accused 28901 28901 28901 28901----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28901 28901 28901 28901----2026 2026 2026 2026 Sarafuddin Ayub Sheikh versus Haryana Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: July 22, 2026 July 22, 2026 July 22, 2026 July 22, 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July July July July 22222222, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) is the 2 to secure regular bail, in case bearing FIR No. under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal , at Cyber Police Station, Rohtak. The gravamen of the FIR in question Rajpal Yadav, was induced by members of a WhatsApp group, namely “Sinha Wealth Institute M 100,” to invest in the share market and IPOs on the false assurance of high returns. Acting on the representations of the accused, rly the main administrator, Nisha Gupta, the complainant downloaded the “Wells Pro App,” opened an FII account, and transferred a total sum of 17.50 lakhs between 09.01.2024 and 23.01.2024. Thereafter, the accused 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana. Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner FIR No.10 dated 07.02.2024, registered B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for in question is that the complainant, Rajpal Yadav, was induced by members of a WhatsApp group, namely “Sinha Wealth Institute M 100,” to invest in the share market and IPOs on the false assurance of high returns. Acting on the representations of the accused, rly the main administrator, Nisha Gupta, the complainant downloaded the “Wells Pro App,” opened an FII account, and transferred a total sum of 17.50 lakhs between 09.01.2024 and 23.01.2024. Thereafter, the accused 1111 Petitioner ….Respondent the Bharatiya Nagarik attempt by the petitioner , registered Code, 1860 (for is that the complainant, Rajpal Yadav, was induced by members of a WhatsApp group, namely “Sinha Wealth Institute M 100,” to invest in the share market and IPOs on the false assurance of high returns. Acting on the representations of the accused, rly the main administrator, Nisha Gupta, the complainant downloaded the “Wells Pro App,” opened an FII account, and transferred a total sum of 17.50 lakhs between 09.01.2024 and 23.01.2024. Thereafter, the accused MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28901 28901 28901 28901----2026 2026 2026 2026 allegedly displayed a fictitious profit in his account and, when he sought withdrawal of the amount, demanded an additional ₹8.20 lakhs towards purported income tax, thereby cheating him of ₹17.50 lakhs through a well- orchestrated cyber fraud. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that sole basis for implication of the petitioner in this case is the disclosure statement of the petitioner and co-accused, which is not admissible in law. Learned counsel has iterated that, in fact, the complainant was in contact with one Nisha Gupta and other admins, namely, Dhananjay Sinha and Jimeet Modi, whereas, the petitioner had never ever interacted with the complainant. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had never received any alleged commission amount of Rs.30,000/- in his bank account or through any other channel and the investigation remained silent on this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no substantial as well as corroborative evidence available with the prosecution to show complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime. 3.1. Learned counsel has submitted that after investigation, challan has already been presented in this case and charges have also been framed. Out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined till date. 3.2. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner's earlier petition seeking regular bail was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2025 passed in CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----42544 42544 42544 42544----2025 2025 2025 2025. It has been contended that the accentuating/subsequent change in circumstances, warranting reconsideration of the prayer for regular bail, is that the trial has been progressing at a snail’s pace, has been MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28901 28901 28901 28901----2026 2026 2026 2026 considerably delayed, for reasons not attributable to the petitioner and extended incarceration of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner; hence, no useful purpose would likely be served by continuing the incarceration of the petitioner further. Thus, it has been entreated that the petition in hand be granted. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that there are grave and serious allegations against the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner along with his co-accused has cheated the complainant of a huge amount. He has further argued that prime prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. He has iterated that the impugned FIR was registered against serious allegations of cyber fraud involving fraudulent transactions. It has been iterated that in case, the petitioner is extended the benefit of regular bail, there are chances that he may flee from the process of justice as also interfere with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the instant bail petition is entreated for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on record. 6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in RRRRafiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: PHHC:054064 afiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: PHHC:054064 afiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: PHHC:054064 afiq Khan vs. State of Haryana and another: 2024: PHHC:054064; relevant whereof reads as under: ““““9. The paramount issue, in any plea for grant of regular bail, is the liberty of an individual. Indubitably, within our society and jurisprudence, liberty is a cherished foundational principle and has fundamental ascendency over all other attributes of social order. Even within the framework of Constitution, this principle is made conspicuous, inter alia, in Article 21 of our Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Cr.P.C., 1973 is one such procedural law which permits curtailment of liberty of anti-social and anti-national elements. Yet, liberty of an MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28901 28901 28901 28901----2026 2026 2026 2026 individual, the accused, must not transgress the rights of another individual, the victim, in terms of right to dignified everyday life without any imminent fear or threat. Additionally, the rights of the collective of individuals viz. the State/Society at large, also cannot be neglected. Therefore, while countenancing the facts for considering the bail, the rights of the triad of accused, victim and the State (Society at large) ought to be entailed. Ergo, while considering a bail plea, the Court ought to take into account this core concept(s). 9.1 An analytical perusal of Cr.P.C. explicates that this statute does not contain any provision relatable to maintainability or otherwise of second/successive bail petitions, including one(s) seeking regular bail. Once there is no statutory prohibition provided for in law, a Court is not logically empowered to import into it such prohibitions, especially in case of codified and legislated law. It is trite law that Courts ought not to read a provision in codified law which has not been specifically provided for by the legislature especially when such reading results into deprivation of rights. The bar contained in Section 362 of Cr.P.C. can, by no stretch of legal imagination, be said to be barring the filing of second/successive regular bail petition. 9.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Singh case (supra) has held that rejection of a bail petition does not, by itself, forbid a Court from considering another one, later in point of time. Similar is the ratio decidendi of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra). Ergo, it can be safely inferred that the decision of a Court qua regular bail petition is essentially an interlocutory order and hence the postulation of res judicata does not apply to its realm. 9.3 The issue that next craves attention is as to what are the factors/parameters for consideration of second/successive regular bail petition(s). 9.4 The concordant legal position is that the essential pre-requisite for consideration of second/successive regular petition is the material/substantial change in circumstances and factors of alike nature. Indubitably, the further period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner- accused after rejection/withdrawal of first/earlier plea for bail, pace of trial, the witnesses turning hostile or not supporting prosecution case and changed medical condition(s) of accused would be pertinent factor(s). It goes without saying that these factors are only illustrative in nature and cannot by any means be said to be exhaustive. 9.5 No rigid or universal criterion can possibly be delineated to conclusively govern the exercise of judicial discretion, in determining as to what would constitute as the above stated substantial change in circumstances. Factual flexibility, one additional or different fact, may cause a sea of difference. There is no gainsaying that each case has its own distinct and unique facts and, hence, exercise of such judicial power is best left to the judicial discretion of a Court, in accordance with the settled norms of our jurisprudence. 10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I. Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28901 28901 28901 28901----2026 2026 2026 2026 III. For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV. No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V. In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.”””” 7. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner were very much available for consideration at the time of adjudication of the petitioner’s first petition seeking regular bail, which stood dismissed on merits, vide a detailed order dated 20.11.2025 ibid. The present petition is a successive attempt to secure the concession of regular bail on substantially the same set of facts and grounds. The only circumstance sought to be projected as a distinguishing feature is the further period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner. However, in the peculiar facts and attending circumstances of the present case, mere prolongation of custody, in the absence of any other supervening circumstance, cannot, by itself, be construed as a valid or sufficient ground to revisit the findings recorded while declining the earlier prayer for regular bail. Continued incarceration, without any material change in the factual or legal landscape, does not ipso facto entitle an accused to the concession of regular bail. It is trite that the maintainability of a second or successive petition for regular bail is predicated upon the existence of a substantial, material or supervening change in circumstances occurring after the MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6666 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28901 28901 28901 28901----2026 2026 2026 2026 rejection of the earlier petition. The change must be of such significance as to justify a fresh consideration of the matter and to persuade the Court to take a view different from the one previously adopted. In the case at hand, no such worthy fresh circumstance, either factual or legal, has been brought to the notice of this Court. 7.1. That apart, as per the prosecution case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with his co-accused, defrauded the complainant of a substantial amount. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner used forged documents and fabricated stamps for opening the bank account in question and, in consideration thereof, received a commission of ₹30,000/-. Furthermore, as per the prosecution, apart from the present occurrence, as many as 45 complaints have been received concerning Account No.1364102100001111, which is alleged to have been operated by the petitioner, through which fraudulent transactions amounting to approximately ₹8,02,83,000/- have been carried out. 8. The grant of bail falls within the discretionary domain of the court; however, such discretion must be exercised in a judicious and principled manner, ensuring it aligns with established legal precedents and is in the interests of justice. While considering a bail application, the Court must evaluate factors such as the existence of prima facie evidence implicating the accused, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and the severity of the likely sentence upon conviction. The Court must also assess the likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the due process of law, the probability of the offence being repeated and any reasonable apprehension of the accused MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7777 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28901 28901 28901 28901----2026 2026 2026 2026 tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Additionally, the character, antecedents, financial means, societal standing and overall conduct of the accused play a crucial role. Furthermore, the Court must weigh the potential danger of bail undermining the administration of justice or thwarting its due course. A profitable reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani State through C.B.I. vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, Tripathi, 2005 AIR Supreme Court 3490, relevant whereof reads as under: ““““14. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati Prahlad Singh Bhati Prahlad Singh Bhati Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 v. NCT, Delhi, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 377 (SC) :2001(4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179 Court 179 Court 179 Court 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 25 (Criminal) 25 (Criminal) 25 (Criminal) 254 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 4 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 4 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 4 (SC) :2004(7) SCC 528 :"The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court court court court in support of the charge. (see Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) Ram GovindUpadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR 250 (SC) : 2002(3) SCC 598 andPuran v. Ram Bilas, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338. (Criminal) 801 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 338.”””” MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 8888 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----28901 28901 28901 28901----2026 2026 2026 2026 9. Keeping in view of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially the gravity of the allegations, the alleged involvement of the petitioner in defrauding the complainant of a substantial amount, the absence of any fresh or supervening circumstance since the dismissal of the earlier petition for regular bail; this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 10. In the aforesaid premise, the petition stands dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed. 11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 12. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 22, 2026 July 22, 2026 July 22, 2026 July 22, 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.22 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment