CRM-M No.29542 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 235 ***** CRM-M No.29542 of 2026 Date of decision : 22.7.2026 Date of uploading : 22.7.2026 Rahul ………….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana --- SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present 4th 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.11 dated 5.2.2024 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Panipat. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in question pertains to cheating/fraud committed online with the complainant to the tune of ₹67 lakhs, on the pretext of depositing insurance premium and getting withdrawal of policy amount in the name of Bharti Axa Life Insurance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 12.6.2024. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.29542 of 2026 -2- counsel has further submitted that the co-accused namely Suresh has been afforded the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is a man aged 32 years with clean antecedents and has already suffered incarceration for more than 2 years in a magisterial trial. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner is also required to lead defence evidence so as to prove his innocence. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel had filed reply by way of affidavit of Satish Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, HQ, Panipat, 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 21.7.2026 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 12.6.2024, whereinafter, investigation was carried out and the challan was presented on 9.9.2024. Total 25 prosecution witnesses have been cited, out of which 20 stand examined and 2 have been partly examined. This Court cannot turn on a nelson’s eye to the fact that the petitioner, who is facing a magisterial trial, has already suffered under trial detention for more than 2 years. ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.29542 of 2026 -3- The very premise for the continued incarceration of the petitioner is significantly attenuated. The apprehension of the petitioner influencing or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, a common ground for denial of bail, is rendered largely moot in such circumstances. As the venerable legal maxim goes 'Cessante ratione legis, cessatipsa lex’- when the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases-duly encapsulates within its ambit, the factual milieu of the instant case. The primary rationale for pre-trial detention, securing the integrity of the prosecution's case and ensuring the accused's presence at trial, is substantially diminished when the evidentiary phase of the prosecution is virtually complete. Furthermore, it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the right to a fair trial is paramount, an indispensable facet of which is the accused's opportunity to present a robust defense. Although the right to lead defence by an accused is regulated by Section 233 of Cr.P.C, nonetheless, it is one of the most valuable rights. A criminal trial is not a one-sided affair, it embodies the adversarial system where both the prosecution and the defense must be afforded an equal, if not greater, opportunity to substantiate their respective cases. To effectively exercise this inalienable right to lead defense evidence, the physical liberty of the accused is often an essential factor. A person confined to custody faces considerable impediments in consulting with legal counsel, gathering defense witnesses, and preparing their strategy. Denial of liberty at this advanced stage, when the prosecution's evidentiary edifice is almost complete, can severely cripple the defense, thereby striking at the very ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.29542 of 2026 -4- root of a fair trial. Audi alteram partem -hear the other side- is a fundamental dictate of natural justice, and denying bail when there's no palpable risk of witness tampering would be to render this maxim nugatory. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh', 1978 AIR (SC) 429, relevant part thereof reads as under: "11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test the reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted." The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues 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 21.7.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 2 years, 01 month and 6 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. 6.2. Indubitably, the present petition is the fourth attempt by the petitioner to secure regular bail. The first bail plea preferred by the ASHWANI KUMAR petitioner was 14.10.2024, second bail plea was withdrawn on 26.11.2024 2026.07.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.29542 of 2026 -5- and the last bail plea was withdrawn on 8.8.2025. Keeping in view the extended incarceration of the petitioner and pace of the trial, this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a 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. ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.29542 of 2026 -6- 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. 7.1. In addition to the conditions stipulated hereinabove, the petitioner shall be obligated to either furnish cash surety or FDR or bank guarantee in favour of the Court releasing him on bail, to the tune of ₹50,000/-. Needless to say that the said amount is liable to be forfeited in case the petitioner does not cause appearance before the concerned Court without tangible cause. 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 ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.29542 of 2026 -7- 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 22.7.2026 Ashwanii Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ASHWANI KUMAR 2026.07.22 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document