220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.12480 of 2026 Date of decision: 06.05.2026 Imran …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present :- Ms. Anisha Sharma, Advocate Mr. Harshit Singh, Advocate and Mr. Parminder Singh Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana. ***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) filed for the grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in FIR No.271 dated 13.11.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 319, 336(3), 338 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420, 416, 468, 467 and 470 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023, at Police Station Cyber Crime Nuh, Haryana. 2. Briefly stated, on 13.11.2025, ASI Sanjay Kumar along with other police officials was present near Village Jhanda Chowk, Nuh in connection with cyber crime duty when secret information was received to NEETU RANI 2026.05.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.12480 of 2026 -2- the effect that Imran son of Rati Khan was involved in cyber fraud activities and was present at Gehbar Road. Acting upon the said information, a raid was conducted and the accused was apprehended at the spot. During checking, one iPhone Pro along with SIM card and linked mobile number was recovered from the possession of the accused and it was found that two online complaints were already registered against the said mobile number. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested on 13.11.2025 and since then, he is in judicial custody. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and his apprehension itself was illegal, as he was allegedly taken from his residence at about 02:30 A.M. on 12.11.2025 by persons claiming to be police officials without any warrant, without disclosure of grounds of arrest and without any intimation to his family members. It is further submitted that thereafter, the wife of the petitioner was allegedly asked to pay illegal gratification by the Investigating Officer for extending favour to the petitioner and, pursuant to her complaint, a trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Gurugram, wherein Home Guard Irfan along with agent Aabid was apprehended while accepting bribe amount, leading to registration of FIR No.0001 dated 08.01.2026 under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 308(2) BNS, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the final report dated 06.01.2026 has been presented only under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the allegations regarding transfer of cheated amount do not NEETU RANI 2026.05.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.12480 of 2026 -3- connect the petitioner with the bank account in question. It is submitted that no material has been placed on record to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the said account. It is further contended that the complainants, namely Basavraj Sitnoor and Baban Sutar, have not been examined during investigation and even the mobile numbers allegedly used in the offence do not belong to the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the investigating agency has relied upon mobile connection application forms standing in the names of other persons without establishing that the petitioner ever used or controlled the said mobile numbers. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2025 and the charge- sheet has already been presented before learned Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that there are only four prosecution witnesses and all of them are police officials and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period. 4. A status report has been filed on behalf of the State. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and argued that during investigation, the petitioner was found involved in cyber fraud activities and was apprehended on 13.11.2025. It has been submitted that one E-SIM, WhatsApp number and bank accounts linked with the cyber fraud were found to be in the name of the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further contended that the role attributed to the petitioner is that he, along with co-accused Madeen, used to commit cyber frauds and the petitioner had permitted use of his Indian Overseas Bank account for crediting the proceeds of cyber frauds and had received an amount of approximately Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- in his share. It is further submitted that the NEETU RANI 2026.05.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.12480 of 2026 -4- petitioner is also involved in other criminal cases and, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail. Learned State counsel, however, does not dispute the fact that during investigation, Sections 336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS as well as Section 42(3)(E) of the Telecommunication Act were deleted and challan has ultimately been presented only under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 420 and 416 IPC respectively). It is also not disputed that the petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2025 and that although there are only four prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, not even a single witness has been examined so far. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he allegedly allowed use of his bank account for crediting proceeds of cyber fraud and received a small share out of the alleged cheated amount. The challan in the present case has already been presented only under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) BNS, 2023 corresponding to Sections 420 and 416 IPC. The petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2025. The trial is likely to take time, particularly when out of total four prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date. The investigation qua the petitioner stands completed and no further custodial interrogation is required. 7. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner NEETU RANI 2026.05.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD CRM-M No.12480 of 2026 -5- is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. (MANDEEP PANNU) 06.05.2026 JUDGE neetu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No NEETU RANI 2026.05.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD