CRM-M-38361-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 249 CRM-M-38361-2026 Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Samudrala Venkateswarlu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. GREWAL ***** Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, Mr. J. S. Kang, Advocate, Mr. Gagandeep Goel, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Manvir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana. **** H. S. GREWAL , J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.251 dated 10.09.2024, under Sections 318(4), 204, 319, 3(5), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 (old provisions Sections, 420,170, 419, 34 and 120-B IPC) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime East, Gurugram, Haryana (Annexure P-1). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a Director of Shrinivasa Padmavathi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad. It is alleged that certain bank accounts were opened in the said bank through which funds were circulated and subsequently withdrawn. According to the prosecution, an amount of Rs. 5.85 crore was routed through the aforesaid ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38361-2026 2 accounts. However, there is no allegation in the case file that the petitioner had any personal knowledge of, or was personally involved in, the opening of the said accounts. The accounts were allegedly opened by the managerial staff at the concerned branch of the bank. Being a Director, the petitioner exercised only supervisory functions and had no role in the day-to-day management or operation of the bank, including the opening or maintenance of customer accounts. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case, and is, in fact, a victim of the circumstances. He further submits that the petitioner, who was a Director of the bank, has been implicated solely on the basis of the statement of one account holder, namely, Royya Sharda, who is alleged to have stated that she had opened her bank account at the instance of the petitioner on the pretext of being assisted in securing a job. It is contended that the said allegation is wholly false and fabricated, as there is no corroborative material on record, such as WhatsApp chats, text messages, e-mails, or any other electronic or documentary evidence, to substantiate the said allegation. He further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the period of 1 year, 2 months and 22 days. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner be released on regular bail, as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38361-2026 3 custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the period of 1 year 2 months and 22 days. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is in custody for the period of 1 year, 2 months and 22 days and that the trial is likely to take a long time, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. 8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his/her furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 9. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. July 21, 2026 (H. S. GREWAL ) anil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.23 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document