Himanshu Khatik vs State Of Haryana

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 182 dated 19.04.2026, registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420 (Wrongly mentioned as 418 IPC in the petition) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station Cyber Crime NIT, Faridabad.

As per the prosecution, present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by Satish Kumar. The complainant alleged that on 23.03.2026, an amount of ₹70,500/- was fraudulently debited from his Axis Bank account through UPI, without his knowledge, without sharing any OTP and without clicking any link. He accordingly sought legal action against the unknown persons responsible for the fraudulent transaction. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 25.04.2026. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that he had opened the bank account in the name of a co-accused and thereafter sold/provided the said account for being used in cyber fraud. The petitioner was allegedly nominated during investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The prosecution further relies upon the banking transactions and electronic evidence collected during investigation. It is further the prosecution case that the amount involved in the alleged fraudulent transaction was transferred into the bank account of the co-accused. The investigation has since been completed and the charge-sheet has been presented before the learned trial Court. The petitioner is stated to have remained in custody since 25.04.2026 and his earlier bail applications were dismissed by the learned Courts below, including the second regular bail application vide order dated 06.08.2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and was not named in the FIR. It is contended that the FIR was registered against unknown persons on the basis of the complaint regarding fraudulent debit of ₹70,500/- from the complainant's bank account, and no role whatsoever was attributed to the petitioner therein. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a 19-year-old boy and has been in custody since 25.04.2026. The investigation stands concluded and the challan has already been presented before the learned trial Court; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution case against the petitioner is primarily based upon the allegation that he had opened the bank account in the name of a co-accused and subsequently sold the same for use in cyber fraud. However, no substantive incriminating material has been recovered from the petitioner to establish his involvement. Neither the alleged fraudulent amount was credited to the petitioner's account nor does the mobile number used in the alleged fraud belong to him. It is also submitted that the mobile phone allegedly used for the fraud belongs to co-accused Yuvraj Khoiwal.

It is contended that the petitioner has been nominated principally on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused and no incriminating electronic device, SIM card, laptop, document or other digital equipment connecting him with the alleged offence has been recovered from his possession.

Learned counsel also relies upon the compromise/settlement between the complainant and the co-accused, pursuant to which the alleged amount of ₹70,500/- has already been paid to the complainant. It is submitted that the dispute, insofar as the monetary loss is concerned, thus stands settled. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is not a flight risk, undertakes to comply with all conditions imposed by the Court and to appear before the learned trial Court on each date of hearing. His continued incarceration, particularly after completion of investigation, would serve no useful purpose.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate dated 16.09.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a total custody period of 04 months and 22 days.

Learned State counsel opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a cyber fraud of ₹70,500/- and his role surfaced during investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner had allegedly provided/sold the bank account for use in the fraudulent transaction and was nominated during investigation.

Be that as it may, the petitioner has been in custody since 25.04.2026 and the investigation stands concluded with the presentation of the challan before the learned trial Court. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was registered against unknown persons, and the allegations against him primarily arise from the subsequent investigation. The alleged fraudulent amount of ₹70,500/- has already been paid to the complainant by the co-accused pursuant to the stated compromise. The prosecution does not dispute that no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. The petitioner is stated to have no criminal antecedents. Keeping in view the custody already undergone, the stage of the proceedings and the fact that the trial is yet to take its course, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2018 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal thereof is an exception, and that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is further submitted that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (SLO (Crl.) No. 8523/2024). In these circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial can be effectively safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted on regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:-

The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the investigating agency.

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall attempt, directly or indirectly, to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness.

The petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event he is in possession of a passport, he shall furnish its particulars before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court.

The learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, before accepting the bail and surety bonds, shall obtain from the petitioner his permanent residential address as well as present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours from the acceptance of the bail bonds and shall place a verification report on the record. In the event either of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days from the date of such change.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. He shall not absent himself from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of any violation of the aforesaid conditions or his unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of regular bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.