Salman vs State Of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 307 dated 13.11.2025 registered under Sections 318(4) and 61 of BNS at Police Station Cyber Crime, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant Rajesh Kumar, alleging therein that on 13.10.2025, he received a call on his mobile phone from a person who represented himself to be a representative of Adani Gas Company and informed him that his bills were pending. The complainant told him that he did not have any connection with Adani Gas Company. However, the caller informed him that upon making an online payment of only Rs.12 through the link provided by him, he would be able to obtain an Adani Gas connection. Believing his representation, the complainant clicked on the said link and made a transaction of Rs.12/-. Subsequently, on 16.10.2025, two transactions took place from the savings bank account of the petitioner for sums of Rs.49,990.16/- and Rs.37,990.15/-, respectively. Seven transactions also took place from the current bank account maintained in the name of his firm with the same bank, involving different amounts. He received messages on his mobile phone regarding the withdrawal of the said amounts. He then called the bank's customer care number and got the accounts blocked, as he had been duped of a total amount of Rs.6,94,204.98/-.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, it transpired that the amounts had been transferred from the bank accounts of the complainant to two bank accounts maintained with RBL Bank and Bajaj Finance. The RBL Bank account was registered in the name of One Fashion India, a firm operated by two persons, namely Rahul Singh and Arish Khan. Accused Nitesh Kumar Rawat was joined in the investigation and suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he along with his friend Balender Vishwakarma, the present petitioner and co-accused Arish Khan, Rahul Singh, Iqbal and Sheikh Mohammed Rafi, had hatched a conspiracy to defraud members of the public on the pretext of issuing Adani Gas Company connections in their favour. He further disclosed that, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused Rahul Singh and Arish Khan had opened a bank account in the name of Fashion India firm. The registered e-mail ID of the said firm was prepared in his name, whereas the mobile numbers of the petitioner and other co-accused were registered with the said e-mail ID. He further disclosed that the petitioner, along with co-accused Balender Vishwakarma, had been assigned the task of withdrawing the money received in the bank accounts through cyber fraud. On the basis of the said disclosure statement, the petitioner and the above-named persons were nominated as accused. The petitioner was arrested on 04.01.2026. He also suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and further disclosed that, in the transaction whereby the complainant was defrauded, he had received a sum of Rs.20,000/- as commission. The investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither the owner of Fashion India firm nor the bank accounts or the mobile phone numbers 8116456016 and 8753966915 are issued in his name. His mobile number was registered with the e-mail ID of Fashion India, known as Fashionindia8166@gmail.com. He is an unemployed person and had merely provided his mobile number to the co-accused, from whom he was receiving salary of Rs.25,000 per month. He has been in custody since 04.01.2026. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. His further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. His antecedents are clean. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. He is not required for further investigation. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He was a member of a gang involved in cheating members of the public and duping them of their money through online transactions. His complicity in the crime stands established, as it was his mobile number which was registered with the e-mail ID of Fashion India firm, the bank account of which was used for receiving the money extracted from the bank accounts of the complainant through cyber fraud. It is further submitted that as many as 107 complaints have been registered on the Cyber Crime Portal in relation to the said bank account. There are chances of the petitioner absconding or committing similar offences if extended benefit of bail. Co-accused are yet to be arrested. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

The petitioner is in conspiracy with the co-accused is alleged to have given his phone number on which the email ID of Fashion India firm had been registered. He is alleged to have been involved in withdrawing the money received in the beneficiary accounts through cyber fraud. The allegations prima facie establish his active complicity in the commission of the crime. The trial has already commenced and 01 out of the 08 prosecution witnesses stands examined. The offence in question is not an isolated act but part of an organized cyber fraud wherein, by providing banking channels forms a crucial link in execution of the crime. Cyber crimes are steadily increasing and have a deep-rooted impact on society, targeting unsuspecting citizens and eroding public confidence in digital platforms. Such offences are serious economic crimes, affecting not only the victim but the financial system at large and, therefore, require a strict approach at the stage of bail. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offences were committed, the part played by the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

It is clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.