CRM-M-20346-2026(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 CRM-M-20346-2026(O&M) Date of Decision:16.07.2026 ANSHUMAN ROY ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL. Present: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Raj Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.603 dated 09.09.2025 under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC (Corresponding to 316(2), 318(4), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS 2023) registered at Police Station Sadar Gurugram, District Gurugram, Haryana. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was induced by the main accused, Sajeesh Chandran @ Saje Betelgeuse, to invest money on the pretext of earning high returns and lucrative business opportunities. It is alleged that, acting upon such inducement, the complainant transferred substantial amounts of money, a part of which was credited into the bank account of the present petitioner. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, in connivance with the co-accused, facilitated the fraudulent transactions by permitting his bank account to be used for routing the cheated amount, thereby participating in the commission of the offences. On these allegations, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.17 16.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20346-2026(O&M) 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that a bare reading of the FIR would reveal that all allegations of inducement, misrepresentation, threats and impersonation have been levelled exclusively against the co-accused, Sajeesh Chandran @ Saje Betelgeuse, and no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in inducing the complainant or making any false representation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated merely because certain transactions were routed through his bank account. However, the use of his bank account, by itself, does not constitute any criminal offence in the absence of any material to establish dishonest intention, wrongful gain or active participation in the alleged fraud. Learned counsel submits that, in fact, the petitioner himself is a victim whose bank account was misused by the principal accused without his knowledge or involvement. Learned counsel further argues that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are not attracted against the petitioner as there is neither any allegation of entrustment nor any allegation that he induced the complainant to part with money. It is also submitted that the dispute, if any, arises out of a business and investment transaction and is essentially civil in nature. The case is based entirely on documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the investigating agency, and no recovery remains to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.12.2025 and his further incarceration serves no useful purpose. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail. RENU RAWAT 2026.07.17 16.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20346-2026(O&M) 3 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular ₹ bail on the ground that an amount of approximately 2.85 crores, alleged to be the proceeds of the crime, was credited into the bank account of the present petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner permitted his bank account to be used for routing the cheated amount and, therefore, was an active participant in the commission of the offence. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 07 months and 10 days and is not involved in any other case. 6. Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the complainant and also opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail. He submits that the petitioner is a resident of the State of Assam and, therefore, there is a reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, he may abscond and evade the process of law. It is further contended that, in such an eventuality, securing the petitioner's presence during the course of trial would become difficult. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record. 8. After hearing the rival contentions and considering the fact that in the case in hand, the petitioner is in custody for the last 07 months and 10 days; is not involved in any other case coupled with the fact that the trial is RENU RAWAT 2026.07.17 16.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20346-2026(O&M) 4 likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial. 9. However, it is noticed that the petitioner belongs to the State of Assam and there is an apprehension expressed by the prosecution that he may abscond if released on bail. In order to safeguard the interest of the prosecution and ensure his presence during the course of trial, stringent conditions are required to be imposed. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on furnishing heavy surety/bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/concerned Magistrate. 10. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 11. It is clarified that if while on bail so granted through the instant order, the petitioner is found indulged in any other criminal case/activity, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail. (H.S.GREWAL) 16.07.2026 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RENU RAWAT 2026.07.17 16.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh