CRM-M-5045-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 216 CRM-M-5045-2026 Decided on : 07.07.2026 RANDHEER SINGH .....PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ......RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab. ***** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No.25 dated 28.12.2024, under Section 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Patiala, District Patiala. 2. FIR was got registered by complainant Satish Kumar Ganda, who became victim of a cyber crime by which complainant was cheated upon for an amount of Rs. 49,25,586/-. As per the allegations, on 24.08.2024 complainant received a message on his whats app number from whats app number 9109466437 and was allured by saying that if you (complainant) want to earn profit by investing the amount in share market, need to be added in the group regarding investment in IPO and Upper Circuit Stock Company at belated time complainant checked the profit linked website given by whatsapp group, then realised that amount of Rs.64,74,285/- is lying in his account along with profit. On Clicking on the link of withdrawal Page 1 of 4 Pages PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5045-2026 the money, the same was found blanked thereupon petitioner got registered FIR of making his investment of Rs.49,25,586/- under the allurement done by the whatsapp group members. During investigation, it is found that petitioner- Randheer Singh is one of the accused in whose account (on three occasions) i.e. total amount of Rs.7,90,051/- was transferred (Rs.2,10,017/-+ +Rs.2,80,017/-Rs.3,00,017/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs.5,77,316.86/- which was found lying in the bank account of the petitioner during investigation was ceased thereon, same has been released to the complainant. Thus, argues that there is balance of only about Rs.2,12,734.14/- which he is ready to pay back to the victim. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the offences in question are of serious nature and are increasingly prevalent in society. Thus, petitioners do not deserve any leniency with regard to their release on bail. The final report has already been submitted by learned State counsel to the Court concerned however, he is unable to the dispute order dated 07.03.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the seized amount of Rs.5,77,316.86 has been released to the complainant/victim. Learned State counsel, produces the custody certificate dated 06.07.2026 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. A copy thereof has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody certificate, in the present case, petitioner has already undergone 08 months and 17 days period inside jail. 4. This Court has heard the submissions addressed by counsel for the parties and has also gone through the record available before it. Page 2 of 4 Pages PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5045-2026 5. With the prevailing circumstances, bank account holders are seriously developing a sense of insecurity regarding their hard-earned money deposited in the banks. The emerging trend of cybercrimes, as reflected in the present case, requires strict scrutiny and the application of strong deterrent principles. 6. It is particularly necessary to adopt such an approach because there exists no immediate statutory mechanism to provide prompt relief to an account holder who urgently requires the amount deposited in his bank account after being defrauded. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the amount which is undisputedly found to have been deposited/credited/transferred into the bank account of the accused seeking bail should either be refunded to the complainant-victim or, at the very least, deposited before the Court in the form of an FDR along with accrued interest, so that the grievance of the complainant is redressed without undue delay. 7. This Court expresses this concern especially for the reason that the defrauded amount may never be recovered by the complainant, and the conclusion of the criminal trial/case may take several years, or even a decade. Even in the event of conviction, it may not provide real or immediate relief to the victim. 8. In the interest of protecting citizens and securing the safety of funds deposited in banks, funds which are often misused when account holders share their details with individuals involved in cybercrime, this Court is of the view that a stringent approach is warranted. 9. In view of totality of circumstances, and the facts/allegations levelled against the petitioner, and the factors noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Page 3 of 4 Pages PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5045-2026 Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 10. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly. 11. Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Therefore, trial Court is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view, on the basis of evidence available on record, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 12. It is further made clear that if, in future, petitioner is directly found indulged in similar kind of activities, this order shall be deemed to be cancelled. 13. Petition stands disposed of. 14. It is clarified that in case amount due to pay to the victim i.e. Rs.2,13,000/- if not paid by the petitioner within a period of 01 month from tomorrow i.e. 08.07.2026, today’s order granting bail would be deemed to be inoperative for all intent and purposes. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 07.07.2026 pry Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO Page 4 of 4 Pages PRIYANKA 2026.07.08 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document