Manoj Kumar vs State of Haryana

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

This petition has been filed under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile section 439 Cr.P.C) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in F.I.R No. 0179 dated 22.05.2025 (herein annexure as Annexure P-1) under sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile section 420 of IPC) and later on added section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (erstwhile 120B of IPC) and section 66D of The Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime East, District Gurugram.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, in conspiracy with co-accused persons, was involved in operating and utilizing a mule bank account for committing cyber fraud against numerous victims. As per the prosecution, 66 complaints were registered on the NCRP Portal against the concerned bank account and approximately ₹3.81 crores were credited therein as proceeds of fraudulent transactions. The money was allegedly routed through an AU Bank account stated to be the first-layer account and thereafter transferred to an Axis Bank account belonging to co-accused Trilok, stated to be the second-layer account. Co-accused Trilok was arrested and allegedly disclosed that he had opened a current account in the name of "TSS Security Service & Manpower Service" and handed over the account-opening kit and documents to co-accused Surajbhan @ Suraj and Raj Kumar for consideration. During investigation, the police apprehended Surajbhan @ Suraj, whereas Raj Kumar was not found present. The present petitioner was subsequently implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Surajbhan @ Suraj, who allegedly stated that Raj Kumar, Rajinder and the petitioner were real brothers and had worked together, and further alleged that the petitioner had received a commission of ₹10,000/-. The petitioner was thereafter arrested.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that there is no independent or direct material connecting him with the alleged cyber fraud. The petitioner was neither the holder nor operator of the alleged bank account, and no bank account operated by him has been identified. It is further contended that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons. Even the disclosure statement of co-accused Trilok, who was the alleged second-layer account holder, does not attribute any role to the petitioner. The account-opening kit, SIM card and mobile phone were allegedly recovered from Trilok himself, and no such incriminating article was recovered from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is merely the real brother of co-accused Raj Kumar, who has been residing separately for several years at District Mohali, Punjab, mere familial relationship with a co-accused cannot constitute incriminating evidence. The petitioner asserts that he appears to have been implicated either to exert pressure upon Raj Kumar to surrender or to facilitate recovery of the alleged amount, which cannot substitute for independent evidence establishing the petitioner's involvement.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. DAG,Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent–State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the petitioner is an active participant in a well organised cyber fraud involving a large number of public money. 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 03 months and 06 days and is not involved in any other case.

I have heard the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record.

After hearing the rival contentions and considering that the the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 months and 06 days; is not involved in any other case; implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused and there is no other material connecting him with the alleged offence, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail during the pendency of the trial.

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 furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

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.