BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.08 dated 11.01.2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Manesar, Gurugram, District Gurugram, under Sections 66-D IT Act. 2. in custody Criminal Case No.2067/2024 wherein he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 01.10.2024 Class, Valsad. Rs.1,82,995/ from para 5 of the status Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.08 dated 11.01.2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Manesar, Gurugram, District Gurugram, under Sections 411, 204 and 120 D IT Act. Learned counsel contends that in custody for about 1½ years, while Criminal Case No.2067/2024 wherein he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by learned Valsad. Further that, he has even refunded the amount of Rs.1,82,995/-, out of Rs.3,28,991/-, to the complainant, a fact apparent from para 5 of the status report dated 21.05.2025. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.08 dated 11.01.2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Manesar, Gurugram, 411, 204 and 120-B IPC and Section that the petitioner has been while being in custody in Criminal Case No.2067/2024 wherein he has been acquitted vide learned Judicial Magistrate Ist has even refunded the amount of the complainant, a fact apparent ed 21.05.2025. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Though challan was presented on 03.12.2024, however, charges stands recently framed on 06.01.2026; the prosecution evidence has to commence and there are, in all, 16 PWs. He is involved in one more case wherein he is on bail, vide order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. 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 09.03.2026, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 01 year, 5 months and 6 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having hacked the credit card of the complainant. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner being on bail in another case. 5. Heard. 6. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 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. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.10 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.