CRM-M-36558-2025 -1- 242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36558-2025 DECIDED ON: 17.07.2025 KATARIYA RAHUL RANABHAI .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL. Present: Mr. Arun William, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG, Haryana. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been invoked seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 02, dated 11.01.2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 61(2), 238, 241 of BNS and 66-C and 66-D of IT Act, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Kurukshetra. 2. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of disclosure suffered by the co-accused. Moreover, neither the complainant had identified that the petitioner is the person who called him and asked to transfer the money, nor any money was ever transferred into the account of SHAM SUNDER 2025.07.17 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36558-2025 -2- the petitioner. Further more, a sum of Rs.40,000/-, claimed to have been recovered from the petitioner. He placed reliance upon the order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed in CRM-M-28299-2025 vide which the co-accused namely Bura Pardeep Venkteshvarlu @ Kundan has been granted the concession of regular bail. On behalf of the State On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which has been taken on record. He opposes the present petition and seeks its dismissal on the ground that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was recovered from the petitioner, which is alleged to be the commission received by him. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an active member of a gang involved in defrauding individuals by making fraudulent calls. 3. Analysis Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedents, who has suffered incarceration for a period 5 months and 16 days, as of now; added with the facts that in the present case challan stands presented on 25.03.2025 wherein, the prosecution has cited 12 prosecution witnesses and charges are yet to be framed, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial would take considerable time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a SHAM SUNDER 2025.07.17 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36558-2025 -3- general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when SHAM SUNDER 2025.07.17 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36558-2025 -4- required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658 6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King- Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the SHAM SUNDER 2025.07.17 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36558-2025 -5- exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days. 7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.” 4. RELIEF : In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on him furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 17.07.2025 JUDGE sham Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SHAM SUNDER 2025.07.17 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document