CRM-M No.32841 of 2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 CRM-M No.32841 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 Rajiv Singh @ Rajiv Singh Parihar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This is third petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.37 dated 06.04.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 127(2), 308(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Cyber Crime Ambala City, District Ambala. 2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Rajinder Kumar Setia’. It was stated by the above named complainant that on 29.03.2025, he received calls from unknown mobile numbers 9434579347 and 9996142627, wherein caller impersonated himself as an officials of Andneri Police Station, Mumbai, and claimed that an FIR had been registered against ₹ him in connection with a fraud of 5.80 crores, as an account had been opened in his name in Canara Bank, by using his identity documents, for the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.32841 of 2026 (O&M) 2 commission of offence. As per complainant, the fraudsters further claimed that warrants had been issued against him and forwarded forged police documents to create a false impression of authenticity, by putting the complainant under fear of arrest and criminal prosecution. The complainant further alleged that the caller dishonestly induced him to transfer 22,79,70,000/- into bank accounts specified by them. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution, during investigation, the petitioner was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused and was arrested on ₹ 15.04.2025, and that cash amount of 4,600/-, one laptop, one iris (eye) scanner machine, three biometric devices, one swipe machine, and 80 bank account kits were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. She has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition. 6. Heard. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.32841 of 2026 (O&M) 3 counsel for the petitioner the second petition for bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 13.02.2026, and that from the date of dismissal of second petition for bail, no significant progress in trial has taken place. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that without any legal basis the petitioner is being prosecuted, and that on account of prolonged incarceration, the petitioner who is already in custody for a period of more than one year and two months, is entitled to the benefit of bail. 8. The learned State counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. According to learned State Counsel in the present case there is no significant change in attending circumstance from the date of dismissal of second bail petition, which was decided on merit on 13.02.2026. According to learned State counsel for want of change in attending circumstance, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail. 9. The record has been perused carefully. 10. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision: - i) that by passing a detailed order the second petition for bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 13.02.2026; ii) that from the date of dismissal of second petition barely 5 months have passed and this period in itself cannot be treated to be a period of prolonged incarceration, inviting an inference that right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated; iii) that otherwise also the total custody period of the petitioner, too, is one year and two months only and the above mentioned period, too, does not invite the above mentioned presumption; MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.32841 of 2026 (O&M) 4 iv) that except the plea of prolonged incarceration there is no other plea to show that this third petition for bail is maintainable. 11. Taking into consideration the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, and that fresh ground for maintaining instant petition is not made out, it is hereby held that present petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal. Hence the same is hereby dismissed accordingly. 12. However, it is clarified that the abovementioned observations shall not have any bearing upon the merits of the case. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 17.07.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.07.18 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document