CRM-M-18715-2025 -1- 232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18715-2025 Date of Decision:07.07.2025 RAJIV RANJAN …PETITIONER VS. STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Siddharth Sihag, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the complainant (Through V.C.). *** N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.129 dated 14.11.2024, registered under Sections 318(4) and 61 of BNS, 2023, Police Station Cyber Crime, Hisar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, nor there is any averment in the FIR, which connects him in the commission of crime. During the course of investigation, it was found that the complainant was cheated to the tune of rupees two crores and a major portion of the cheated amount was transferred in the accounts of Vijay, Zaid A. Munaf, Sahil and one more person. He further contends that the petitioner had no concern or connection with the said persons. In fact during the course of VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-18715-2025 -2- investigation, Vijay was arrested by the police, who had named Ashish Sain, co-accused in his disclosure statement. Ashish Sain was also arrested, who also suffered disclosure statement in custody and the petitioner has been nominated as an accused in the said statement. Learned counsel further contends that in fact the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he used to arrange accounts for his co-accused and had received a sum of Rs.20,000/- as a commission for facilitating a Cyber fraud. Even the prosecution has cited 14 witnesses, but no witness has been examined so far. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 03.01.2025 and is in custody for the last more than 06 months. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that he had provided various accounts to the fraudsters in the present case and was actively involved with Ashish Sain in the present case. However, it is not denied that the petitioner is not facing any other criminal prosecution. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2011(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 898 and 2011 AIR (SCW) 6838 as follows:- “14. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bai is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-18715-2025 -3- liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 15. In the instant case, as we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is 'the seriousness of the charge'. The offences alleged are economic offences which has resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is possibility of the appellants tampering witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only testor the factor: The other factor that also VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-18715-2025 -4- requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather "recalibration of the scales of justice." The provisions of Criminal Procedure Code confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions, since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 703 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 307 : (2005)2 SCC 42, observed that "under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable, is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the Court is satisfied by reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case, there is need to release such accused on bail, where fact situations require it to do so." VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-18715-2025 -5- 6. In the present case also, no doubt the police has found sufficient incriminating evidence against the present petitioner, however, the Court is also conscious of the fact that the offences in the present case are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the petitioner is continuing in custody for the last more than 06 months. Even the prosecution has not been able to examine even a single witness so far and the trial Court may take considerable time to conclude the trial. 7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself from the Court proceedings except on the prior permission of the Court concerned. (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, (if already not surrendered), and in case he is not holder of the same, he shall swear an affidavit to that effect. (v) The petitioner shall also file his affidavit before the concerned Court, mentioning his ordinary place of residence and number of mobile phone, which shall be used by him during the pendency of the trial. In case of change of place of residence/mobile number, he shall share the details with the concerned Court/learned Trial Court. VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order CRM-M-18715-2025 -6- (vi) In case, the petitioner is involved in any other criminal activity, during the pendency of the trial, it shall be viewed seriously. (vii) The concerned Court may insist on two heavy local sureties and may also impose any other condition, in accordance with law, while accepting the bails bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. 8. In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application in this regard. 07.07.2025 (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) vipin JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIPIN KUMAR 2025.07.08 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order