CRM-M No.16756 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 236 ***** CRM-M No.16756 of 2026 Date of decision : 9.7.2026 Date of uploading : 9.7.2026 Krishan Kumar ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.134 dated 18.5.2024 under Sections 318 and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, East Gurugram, District Gurugram. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the present case has been registered on the complaint of Anil Vig. It is alleged that on 02.05.2024, the complainant received a phone call from a person claiming to be a representative of DHL, using mobile number 9809076511, who introduced himself as Arvind. The caller informed the complainant that a parcel containing passports and Aadhaar cards had been returned from ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.09 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.16756 of 2026 -2- customs. Upon the complainant denying any such consignment, the caller connected him to another person posing as a police officer, who further induced the complainant to join a Skype ID livecid.c99a61f1b6c54db. They impersonating themselves law-enforcement officials, falsely informed the complainant that his identity was being misused and that, for "software analysis" and "safe custody", he was required to transfer money from his bank account. Under fear, mental pressure, and continuous intimidation for about nine days, the complainant transferred a total amount of ₹99,99,299/- from his HDFC Bank account No. 05721060001402 (IFSC HDFC0000572) to various bank accounts, including: ₹16,99,299/- to HDFC Bank Account No.50200090371482, ₹ 65,00,000/- (in two transactions of ₹24,00,000/- and ₹41,00,000/-) to HDFC Bank Account No.50200094930801, and ₹18,00,000/- to IDBI Bank Account No. 089010400086851 (IFSC IBKL0000890). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2024. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has urged that the prime prosecution version against the petitioner available at this juncture is that he had given his bank account to the petitioner as a mule account and has received commission of ₹25,000/-. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a man aged 30 years and the sole bread earner of his family. Learned counsel has further urged that the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.09 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.16756 of 2026 -3- 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised 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 custody certificate dated 13.5.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 10.10.2024 and stated to be languishing in gaol since then. Upon culmination of investigation, challan was presented on 9.12.2024 wherein 4 witnesses have been cited but charges are yet to be framed. This Court has called for the record of the concerned trial Court, perusal whereof reflects that co-accused namely Pushkar Maneria and Dev Narayan are not appearing in Court for attending the trial proceedings and bailable warrants issued against them, which are not executed till date. It appears that the petitioner cannot be saddled with any folly on account of procrastination of the trial. The rival contentions raised by learned counsel give rise to debatable issues which shall 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. 6.1 As per custody certificate dated 13.5.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.09 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.16756 of 2026 -4- 01 year, 7 months and 4 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6.2 Indubitably, the petition in hand is the 2nd attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. His first bail plea was dismissed on 30.9.2025 wherein the following order was passed: ‘1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.134 dated 18.05.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, 1860 (Section 120-B of IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000 added later on), at Police Station Cyber Crime Police Station, Gurugram, District Gurugram. 2. Status report by way of an affidavit dated 27.09.2025 of Priyanshu Dewan, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber, Gurugram as also the custody certificate dated 29.09.2025 filed by learned State counsel in the Court today, are taken on record 3. Faced with the situation that testimony of the FIR–complainant– victim, namely Anil Vig is yet to be recorded, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition in hand at this stage. 4. Ordered accordingly. 5. The trial Court is directed to make an earnest endeavour to record the testimony of the said witness expeditiously, as per law. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed off.’ However, the discussion ibid reflects that the delay of trial is not attributable to petitioner and FIR-complainant Anil Vig and it cannot be saddled on account of any folly of the petitioner. Accordingly, keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the case in hand, especially extended incarceration of the petitioner and the pace of the trial, as also the factum of non-examination of Anil Vig-complainant not attributable to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.09 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.16756 of 2026 -5- judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana 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). 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. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail 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:- ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.09 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.16756 of 2026 -6- (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 cell-phone 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. 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 9.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.09 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document