CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19121 19121 19121 19121---- 205 205 205 205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Manish Kumar State of Haryana Date of Date of Date of Date of Decision Decision Decision Decision Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL the BNSS seeking No.0339 dated Sections 409, 420, 120 District Gurugram. 2. connivance with co Radical Minds Technologies Private Limited (RMTPL), defr complainant, One97 Communications Limited (parent company of Paytm), by processing fraudulent refunds. Through this ----2026 2026 2026 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19121 19121 19121 19121----2026 2026 2026 2026 Manish Kumar Versus Haryana Decision Decision Decision Decision: : : : April 17 April 17 April 17 April 17, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: April 17 April 17 April 17 April 17, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition is the second attempt seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner dated 27.12.2023, registered for the off 409, 420, 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Udyog Vihar Gurugram, District Gurugram. The gravamen of the FIR in question connivance with co-accused persons, who were former employees/agents of Radical Minds Technologies Private Limited (RMTPL), defr complainant, One97 Communications Limited (parent company of Paytm), by processing fraudulent refunds. Through this 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH 2026 2026 2026 2026 ….Petitioner …Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG Haryana. is the second attempt filed under Section 483 of grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR registered for the offences punishable under at Police Station Udyog Vihar Gurugram, FIR in question is that the petitioner, in accused persons, who were former employees/agents of Radical Minds Technologies Private Limited (RMTPL), defrauded the complainant, One97 Communications Limited (parent company of Paytm), by processing fraudulent refunds. Through this modus operandi, substantial 1111 ….Petitioner …Respondent 483 of in case bearing FIR ences punishable under at Police Station Udyog Vihar Gurugram, in accused persons, who were former employees/agents of auded the complainant, One97 Communications Limited (parent company of Paytm), , substantial MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19121 19121 19121 19121----2026 2026 2026 2026 amounts were allegedly transferred to various Paytm wallet accounts of several known and unknown persons, causing a wrongful loss of approximately ₹8.06 crores. It is further alleged that, during investigation, the IP logs and user IDs used for processing the fraudulent refunds were traced back to the employees/agents of RMTPL and the co-accused persons. As per prosecution case, co-accused – Lokesh Kumar, Manish Kumar, and Chailesh Sharma received substantial amounts from the fraudulent refunds in their respective Paytm accounts, and a sum of ₹18,14,423/- was credited to the account of the petitioner (herein). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 28.04.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that, assuming arguendo, the prosecution version is taken to be correct, only ₹18,14,423/- had come into the account of the petitioner and that too was on account of misleading by the co-accused. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 11 months and is not involved in any other case. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record the custody certificate dated 15.04.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19121 19121 19121 19121----2026 2026 2026 2026 6. The petitioner was arrested on 28.04.2025, whereinafter, the investigation was carried out and the challan qua petitioner has been presented on 18.06.2025. Out of total 20 cited prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) Maharashtra and anothers, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494 RCR (Criminal) 494 RCR (Criminal) 494 RCR (Criminal) 494, which reads thus: ““““18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21. We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.”””” The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issued, which shall essentially be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19121 19121 19121 19121----2026 2026 2026 2026 6.1. As per custody certificate dated 15.04.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 11 months and 18 days, & the petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other IPC case. 6.2. Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.08.2025. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand; especially, extended custody of the petitioner, substantial witnesses having been recorded, including the FIR-complainant; this Court is inclined to affirmatively consider the instant petition. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA CRA CRA CRA----SSSS----2332 2332 2332 2332----2023 2023 2023 2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Rafiq Khan versus State of Rafiq Khan versus State of Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana Haryana Haryana Haryana and another and another and another and another; relevant whereof reads as under: ““““10. As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof. II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits. III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances. IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19121 19121 19121 19121----2026 2026 2026 2026 V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed.”””” Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed allowed allowed allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6666 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----19121 19121 19121 19121----2026 2026 2026 2026 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE April 17 April 17 April 17 April 17, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.04.17 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment