IN THE 211 Arshdeep Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. for Mr. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ CRM-14071-2026 The date of hearing in Since application has been Disposed Main case The Bharatiya Nagarik petitioner in case Sections 61(2), 316(2), Nyaya Sanhita, 2000 at Police Station 2. The made by Aneetu Arshdeep Singh pretext of providing THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12728 Date of decision: VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD . Pardeep Kumar and Mr. Abhishek the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 2026 The present application has been filed in the main case. Since the main petition is listed been rendered infructuous. Disposed of as having been rendered The instant second petition has been Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for case bearing FIR No.0029 dated 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 2023 and Section 66(C) of the Station Cyber Police Station, District The present FIR has been registered Aneetu daughter of Kirpa Ram, alleging and Pankaj had opened a bank providing her employment. However, PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 12728-2026(O&M) decision: 07.05.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Abhishek Singh, Advocates Punjab. filed for seeking preponing of the for today itself, the present rendered infructuous. filed under Section 483 of the grant of regular bail to the 27.08.2025 registered under 340(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Information Technology Act, District Patiala. registered on the basis of a statement alleging that accused Manga Singh, bank account in her name on the no job was ever provided to SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.08 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 211 CRM-M-12728-2026(O&M) her and, instead, the said account was misused by the accused persons for depositing amounts obtained by defrauding innocent persons through internet banking and UPI transactions. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that as per the investigation, on 01.09.2025 co-accused Pankaj got recorded his statement that his companions Sumi and Babu are residing at Philippines and told him to send fake SIMs through courier and that he used to receive the commission on the pretext thereof. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 29.08.2025 on the basis of an extra judicial confession and has undergone an actual custody of nearly 09 months. It is further contended that the offences in question is triable by the Court of Magistrate and that the trial has yet not commenced, where 24 witnesses are cited by the prosecution out of which none has been examined so far. Moreover, even the charge has not been framed in the present case at this stage. He submits that there is no other criminal case that has been registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned State Counsel on the other hand contends that the petitioner was handler of the accounts and that he allured innocent people into parting with their documents for opening bank accounts under the garb of providing them jobs. The petitioner later handed over the said account details to the persons sitting in Phillpines and they facilitated huge transactions in the said accounts that were obtained through the active involvement of the petitioner herein. Rest of the averments pertaining to the period of custody, clean antecedents and the stage of trial are not disputed as also the fact that charges in the present case has not been framed yet. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.08 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 211 CRM-M-12728-2026(O&M) 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 6. Taking into consideration the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, the nature of allegations levelled against him, his clean antecedents, the stage of trial and noticing that the offences in question are triable by the Court of Magistrate, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petition. 7. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 9. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 07.05.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.08 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document