CRM-M-71551- IN THE H (306) SHER SINGH SO STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul registered under S (for short “BNS Police Station Cy petition had been d 2. The p offences on the all accused to dupe committing online dismissed by this observations :- -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH H SON OF BHIM SAIN Versus
HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant one is the second petition of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of B BNS”) and Section 66-D of Informat ion Cyber Crime, Gurugram, Distric been dismissed by this Court vide ord The petitioner is facing trial for co the allegations that he was part of a co dupe the complainant of an amo online fraud. The previous petition f y this Court vide order dated 04.04.2 JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-71551-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.02.2026 ... Petitioner
...Respondent
ANISHA BATRA
or the petitioner petition filed by the petitioner under a Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.274 dated 24.09.2024 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 formation Technology Act, 2008 at District Gurugram. The previous de order dated 04.04.2025. for commission of aforementioned of a conspiracy hatched with the co- n amount of Rs.1,47,52,334/- by ition filed by the petitioner had been 4.04.2025 by making the following M) 2026 nder ) 2024 2023 08 at ious oned - by been wing AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71551- As p WhatsApp group pretext, he was c investing through inactive and he w petitioner had su accused with the a opening a bank Subsequently, rec allegations agains with the co-accuse the pretext of ena high yields. The crime. He is invo expressed by learn may abscond or unfounded. Keep attributed to the p circumstances of does not deserve petition is dismiss 3. It is dismissal of his p period of more tha -2025 (O&M) 2 s per the allegations, the compla oup for the purpose of doing invest as convinced to part with a huge a ugh a web link. However, later he was removed from the WhatsA d surfaced in the disclosure state the allegations that he had taken he ank account and had given her recovery of an amount of Rs.84,0 ainst the petitioner are quite serious ccused in duping innocent persons o enabling them to invest in some s The petitioner has played active r involved in one more case of simil learned State counsel that if extende or indulge in similar offences c Keeping in view the aforesaid facts he petitioner, his criminal anteceden s of the case, I am of the consider erve to be released on bail, at thi missed. It is argued by learned counsel for f his previous petition, there is a cha ore than 10 months has passed but the mplainant was induced to join a vestments in stocks. On the said ge amount of Rs.1,47,52,334/- by ater on, the said link was made atsApp group. The name of the statement of aforementioned co- n her to a bank for the purpose of her an amount of Rs.10,000/-. .84,000/- has been effected. The rious. He has been involved along ns of their hard earned money on e stocks with a lucrative offer of ive role in commission of subject similar nature. The apprehension ended benefit of bail, the petitioner es can also not be stated to be facts and circumstances, the role edents and the attendant facts and idered opinion that the petitioner t this stage. Hence, the present sel for the petitioner that after the a change in the circumstances as a but the trial is at standstill as the file a aid by de the - of . he ng on of ect ion ner be ole nd ner ent r the as a e file AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71551- of the Trial Cou 12.10.2024. The is upto a period o near future. Each in the circumstanc is, therefore, argue 4. Per c against the petitio dismissed by passi not maintainable. serious in nature. show that there w placed on record c the Trial Court sh thus argued that th 5. This C at considerable len 6. This release on bail. H settled propositio maintainable in l maintainability th successes the petit -2025 (O&M) 3 l Court is not traceable. He is The maximum punishment which ca riod of 07 years. There are no chance Each day spent by him in custody am mstances thereby entitling him to seek argued that the petition deserves to be Per contra, learned State counsel ha petitioner are serious in nature. Hi y passing a detailed order. This is a su nable. Even otherwise allegations ag ature. The trial has commenced and here would be any undue delay in co cord copies of orders dated 05.01.202 urt showing that effective proceeding that the petition does not deserve to be This Court has heard the rival submis ble length. This is the second attempt on the par ail. His previous petition was dismis position of law that second/success e in law and should not be reject lity thereof. However, for the succe e petitioner is certainly required to sho e is in continuous custody since ich can be awarded to the petitioner chances of conclusion of trial in the ody amounts to a substantive change to seek concession of bail afresh. It s to be allowed. nsel has argued that the allegations e. His previous petition had been is a successive petition and hence is ions against the petitioner are quite d and there is nothing on record to in conclusion of the trial. He has 1.2026 and 02.02.2026 as passed by eedings are being conducted. It is, e to be allowed. ubmissions made by both the parties the part of the petitioner for seeking dismissed on 04.04.2025. It is well uccessive regular bail petition is rejected solely on the ground of successive regular bail petition to to show some substantive change in since ioner n the ange h. It tions been ce is quite rd to as d by It is, rties king well n is d of n to ge in AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71551- circumstances and Reference in this r CRA-S-2332-2023 7. The commenced but i examined so far. is well settled pro furnishes a ground and circumstances detention of the pe petition is allowed his furnishing per learned Trial Co conditions :- (i) or d (ii) Cou unl (iii wh -2025 (O&M) 4 es and some superficial or ostensib n this regard can be added to the obser 2023 titled as Rafiq Khan Versus St The petitioner is in custody sin but it has come on record that no far. Obviously the trial will take con ed proposition of law that each day sp ground to seek bail afresh. Taking into stances, this Court is of the consider the petitioner would not serve any use llowed and the petitioner is ordered to ng personal and surety bonds to the al Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM conc
(i) The petitioner shall not or documentary during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner shall not Court and shall appear there on ea unless his presence is exempted by (iii) The petitioner shall not while on bail. stensible change does not specify. observations made by this Court iin us State of Haryana and another. y since 12.10.2024. Trial has at no prosecution witness has been ke considerable time to conclude. It ay spent by the accused in custody ing into consideration the entire facts nsidered opinion that the continued ny useful purpose. Accordingly, the ered to be released on bail subject to to the extent of 02 sureties of the concerned and on the following ll not tamper with any evidence oral ll not absent himself from the Trial on each and every date of hearing ted by Ld. Trial Court. all not commit any similar offence cify. in has been e. It tody facts nued , the ct to f the wing oral Trial aring ence AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71551- (iv) num Sta tria (v) any can (vi) furn cha 8. In the petitioner, it shal application seekin 9. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 10. Since any, is rendered in 18.02.2026 Amit Sharma

-2025 (O&M) 5 (iv) The petitioner shall giv number to the Investigating Officer Station and shall not change the sa trial and also without prior permiss (v) The petitioner will not tr any breach of these conditions the cancellation of bail. (vi) The petitioner shall su furnish details of his cell phone an change his mobile number(s) durin In the event of there being any FIR t shall be open to the respondent to seeking cancellation of bail.
It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been all ered infructuous.
(MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

ll give the details of his cellphone Officer/SHO concerned of the Police the same during the pendency of the ermission to the Trial Court. l not try to delay the trial. In case of ns the State shall be liberty to move all surrender his passport, if any, one and Aadhar card, and shall not during the pendency of the trial.
y FIR/complaint lodged against the dent to seek redressal by filing an e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner. een allowed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
hone olice f the se of ove any, l not t the g an l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.18 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.