CRM-M-17565-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 237 CRM-M-17565-2026 Date of decision : 09.07.2026 Date of uploading : 09.07.2026 Alok Kumar ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Yogender Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana. --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present 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.17 dated 21.02.2024 under Sections 471, 468, 467, 420, 120-B of IPC 1860 read with Sections 340(2), 336(3), 338, 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station, District Rohtak, Haryana. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the present case was registered on the allegations that:- “The present case was registered based on a complaint of Himanshu Narang to the effect that on 16.02.2024, he received a call from Mobile Nos.919891936031 & 919891986494 who offered him a part time job. On his enquiry, they disclosed that he has to start song on Spotify for few seconds and to share the screenshot to them. After completion of task, they will pay him. Thereafter, he received a Whatsapp message from Mobile No.919695603209, who disclosed her name as Sheetal Sharma, Post-HR at Spotify App and told him about the work and its benefits. Thereafter, they provided him with group links and a telegram ID, which he joined. JATIN 2026.07.09 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17565-2026 -2- On 17.02.2024, they gave him five tasks which he completed and sent screenshot in the group. From the sixth task onwards, they asked him to deposit an amount first, which he agreed and sent firstly Rs.1000/- on the UPI id given by them. Later, they refunded him Rs.1500/-. Then he sent Rs.5000/- on their UPI ID and received back Rs.6800/-. But thereafter, on several occasions, they asked him to make payment into their UPI account but did not refund the money and thereby committed fraud of Rs.11,84,000/-. He prayed for legal action against the accused for cheating him.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is, in fact, a victim himself, as his account has been used as a mule account by the actual fraudsters. Learned counsel has further argued that total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and the trial is procrastinating, and the folly whereof is not attributable to the petitioner. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit dated 15.05.2026 in Court today. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, 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 09.07.2026 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. JATIN 2026.07.09 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17565-2026 -3- 6. The petitioner was arrested on 07.01.2025 wherein after investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 28.03.2025. Total 17 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been examined till date. A co-accused, namely Priya Anurag, already stands released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge. It is thus indubitable that culmination of trial will take its own time. 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 09.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year 6 months and 3 days & is shown to be involved in other cases. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh JATIN 2026.07.09 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17565-2026 -4- Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191. 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:- (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. (ix) The petitioner, in addition to the aforesaid conditions, shall be required to either furnish cash surety or bank guarantee/FDR in the name of Court releasing him on bail to the tune of Rs.1 lacs/-. 8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed JATIN 2026.07.09 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17565-2026 -5- 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 09.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.07.09 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document