CRM-M-42512 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 213 RAVI PANDEY STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present : SURYA P petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 25.02.2026 punishable under Section Sanhita, 2023 2. ‘Meena Jain’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. alleged by the above 42512-2026(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION RAVI PANDEY VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Ayaz Ahmed, Advocate (joined through video conferencing Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for pre-arrest bail is petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 25.02.2026, Police Station Cyber Sonipat punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 Sanhita, 2023. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Meena Jain’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. alleged by the above-named complainant that 8587 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-42512-2026(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 18.08.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH for the petitioner. joined through video conferencing) Ms. Deepali Verma, Asst. A.G. Haryana. arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.17 dated Sonipat, for the commission of offence 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of Meena Jain’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was named complainant that she was working as .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated fence Bharatiya Nyaya The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of It was she was working as GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.20 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42512 Accountant in ‘Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kundli’ she saved the number 2’. According to complainant, she received a WhatsApp payment request from a number appearing complainant, amount of number. As per complainant, later on WhatsApp number had been hacked by unknown person commit the fraud. 3. complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during the course of investigation it was revealed that the petitioner and his abovementioned cyber fraud, and that kit of ‘R.P. Fabrics’, used to receive the defrauded funds prosecution, during the course of further investigation Yadav’ was statement that he had committed the abovementioned fraud in active connivance with 4. 5. the petitioner of offence 42512-2026(O&M) Accountant in ‘Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kundli’ she saved the number of her senior colleag 2’. According to complainant, she received a WhatsApp payment request from a number appearing to be of her senior, namely complainant, believing the message to be authentic, she transferred an amount of Rs.76,20,000/- to the bank account provided through abovesaid number. As per complainant, later on she came to know that her senior’s WhatsApp number had been hacked by unknown person commit the fraud. It is case of the prosecution t complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken According to prosecution, during the course of investigation it was revealed that the petitioner and his associates were responsible for entioned cyber fraud, and that they had provided the bank account of ‘R.P. Fabrics’, used to receive the defrauded funds prosecution, during the course of further investigation was arrested and on his interrogation, h statement that he had committed the abovementioned fraud in active connivance with and participation of the present petitioner. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of offence, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, 8587 2 Accountant in ‘Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kundli’, and that in her mobile phone, of her senior colleague, namely ‘Sahil Garg’ as ‘hkg 2’. According to complainant, she received a WhatsApp payment request senior, namely ‘Sahil Garg’. As per believing the message to be authentic, she transferred an to the bank account provided through abovesaid she came to know that her senior’s WhatsApp number had been hacked by unknown person, with a motive It is case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken According to prosecution, during the course of investigation it was associates were responsible for they had provided the bank account of ‘R.P. Fabrics’, used to receive the defrauded funds. As per prosecution, during the course of further investigation, co-accused ‘Ramesh arrested and on his interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement that he had committed the abovementioned fraud in active the present petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that ent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission , and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, , and that in her mobile phone, as ‘hkg- 2’. According to complainant, she received a WhatsApp payment request . As per believing the message to be authentic, she transferred an to the bank account provided through abovesaid she came to know that her senior’s , with a motive to hat pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken According to prosecution, during the course of investigation it was associates were responsible for the they had provided the bank account . As per accused ‘Ramesh e suffered a disclosure statement that he had committed the abovementioned fraud in active It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that ent, having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission , and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.20 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42512 without any legal basis. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, except the disclosure statement of co been collected by the Investigating Agency. With regard to disclosure statement of co petitioner that evidence, in vie co-accused was already in police custody disclosure statement, nothing has been discovered. 6. abovementioned that in the present case, there is ample evidence to show that the offence was committed by co present petitioner. According to learned State Cou collected by the Investigating Agency commission of abovementioned offence, the petitioner and ‘Ramesh Yadav’ had stayed together in one hotel, and that entries recorded by the hotel management have been collected As per learned State Counsel, in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation is necessary. 7. 8. settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power 42512-2026(O&M) without any legal basis. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, except the disclosure statement of co-accused, no evide been collected by the Investigating Agency. With regard to disclosure statement of co-accused, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the abovementioned disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence, in view of the fact that the same was recorded accused was already in police custody disclosure statement, nothing has been discovered. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel in the present case, there is ample evidence to show that the offence was committed by co-accused ‘Ramesh Yadav’ present petitioner. According to learned State Cou collected by the Investigating Agency which proves commission of abovementioned offence, the petitioner and ‘Ramesh Yadav’ had stayed together in one hotel, and that entries recorded otel management have been collected As per learned State Counsel, in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation is necessary. The record has been perused carefully. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect exercising power to grant anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a 8587 3 without any legal basis. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, accused, no evidence, whatsoever, has been collected by the Investigating Agency. With regard to disclosure accused, it has been contended by learned counsel for the the abovementioned disclosure statement is inadmissible in w of the fact that the same was recorded at the stage, when accused was already in police custody, and pursuant to abovementioned disclosure statement, nothing has been discovered. The learned State Counsel has controverted the arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel in the present case, there is ample evidence to show that the offence was accused ‘Ramesh Yadav’ in active connivance with the present petitioner. According to learned State Counsel, evidence has been which proves that one day prior to commission of abovementioned offence, the petitioner and his co-accused ‘Ramesh Yadav’ had stayed together in one hotel, and that entries recorded otel management have been collected by the Investigating Agency. As per learned State Counsel, in order to fix the role of petitioner in the commission of crime, his custodial interrogation is necessary. The record has been perused carefully. far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while grant anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a without any legal basis. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, nce, whatsoever, has been collected by the Investigating Agency. With regard to disclosure accused, it has been contended by learned counsel for the the abovementioned disclosure statement is inadmissible in , when and pursuant to abovementioned The learned State Counsel has controverted the arguments. It has been contended by learned State Counsel in the present case, there is ample evidence to show that the offence was in active connivance with the nsel, evidence has been that one day prior to the accused ‘Ramesh Yadav’ had stayed together in one hotel, and that entries recorded by the Investigating Agency. As per learned State Counsel, in order to fix the role of petitioner in the far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is while grant anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.20 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42512 matter of only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. 9. the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail i 10. case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. 11. Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an excep remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 42512-2026(O&M) matter of routine. Rather as per law the abovesaid only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for the extraordinary remedy. With regard to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. Similarly, in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an excep remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. 8587 4 . Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation. e of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. benefit should be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist for , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of e of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble tional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.20 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42512 12. 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: 13. investigation is still going on and with regard to role of petitioner in the commission of crime, any evidence is yet to be collected Agency. How abovementioned offence, the petitioner and his co had stayed together in one hotel, petitioner might have participated in the to find out truth his custodial interrogation 14. custodial interro 42512-2026(O&M) In the case of Gurbaksh Singh 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that: (i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (ii) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (iii) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 16 investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised. In the present case, this fact cannot be ignored that the investigation is still going on and with regard to role of petitioner in the commission of crime, any evidence is yet to be collected However, in view of the fact that abovementioned offence, the petitioner and his co had stayed together in one hotel, this possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioner might have participated in the commission of crime. Thus, in order to find out truth, and to fix the role of petitioner his custodial interrogation is of paramount importance. It shall not be out of place to mention here that custodial interrogation of a suspect is a valuable right 8587 5 In the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:- The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be In the present case, this fact cannot be ignored that the investigation is still going on and with regard to role of petitioner in the commission of crime, any evidence is yet to be collected by the Investigating ever, in view of the fact that one day prior to commission of abovementioned offence, the petitioner and his co-accused ‘Ramesh Yadav’ his possibility cannot be ruled out that the commission of crime. Thus, in order and to fix the role of petitioner in the commission of crime, is of paramount importance. t shall not be out of place to mention here that right of is a valuable right available to an Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the 7(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be In the present case, this fact cannot be ignored that the investigation is still going on and with regard to role of petitioner in the by the Investigating one day prior to commission of accused ‘Ramesh Yadav’ his possibility cannot be ruled out that the commission of crime. Thus, in order in the commission of crime, right of available to an GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.20 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42512 Investigating Agency the Investigating Agency case of such denial, Investigating Agency 15. relevant laws, it for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner according present petition hereby dismissed 16. hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 17. application 18.08.2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 42512-2026(O&M) ting Agency, and that in the present case, if such right is den the Investigating Agency, the same may result into miscarriage of justice case of such denial, the investigation may not take a proper headway Investigating Agency may not be able to collect requisite evidence. Considering the above-discussed facts relevant laws, it is hereby observed that no ground exists for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner according him the benefit of pre-arrest bail. petition is devoid of merits and dismissed, accordingly. It is, however, clarified that the observations hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 8587 6 in the present case, if such right is denied to result into miscarriage of justice may not take a proper headway and the may not be able to collect requisite evidence. discussed facts & circumstances, and the no ground exists in the instant case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the petitioner, arrest bail. Thus, it is hereby held that the and deserves dismissal. The same is It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No ied to result into miscarriage of justice. In and the and the in the instant case, by that the same is recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.08.20 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document