212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11506-2025 Date of decision: 14.05.2025 Sandeep ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Lakshay Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.372 dated 09.12.2024 under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of BNS (Section 241 of BNS and Section 66-D of IT Act were added later on) registered at Police Station Cyber West (Annexure P-1) District Gurugram, Haryana. The FIR (supra) was registered on the basis of secret information that the accused/petitioner was involved in cyber fraud by procuring bank accounts from individuals for use in online fraudulent activities. On the said day, he was found sitting in his office at Madanpuri with some bank accounts in his possession and the information was found credible and correct and on the basis of the alleged recovery, the FIR (supra) was registered. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Jatin as well as Rahul, Ajay and Amit, have been Neha 2025.05.14 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11506-2025 -2- granted the concession of regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, respectively. Further, the mobile which was recovered from the possession of co-accused, Jatin, has not been mentioned in the FIR (supra) nor any complaint has been received that the said mobile number was used for committing any fraud. He further submits that the petitioner is having clean antecedents and he is not involved in any other case. There is no concrete evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence. The petitioner is behind the bars since 12.12.2024 and the investigation is complete. The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court today which is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that an amount of Rs.74,000/- and a bank kit have been recovered from the house of the petitioner and his complicity is duly proved during investigation, as such, he is not entitled to any relief. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” Neha 2025.05.14 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-11506-2025 -3- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 12.12.2024. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not made much progress as only 01 out of 15 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In view the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the trial, the petitioner-Sandeep is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 14.05.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.05.14 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document