Narender Vs State of Haryana

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No.10 dated 21.01.2025, under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Sirsa.

¶15

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by one Ankush, stating therein that he and Sachin were studying in Sirsa. One day, Sachin told him that his acquaintances Mohit and Suraj used to open accounts in the bank, saying that the money comes in the accounts under some schemes of Government. Under this impression, the complainant and Sachin went to aforesaid Mohit and Suraj, who told them to open the accounts in the bank and the MONIKA Government would transfer money as it does so under many Government 2025.08.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-26254-2025

¶17

2

¶18

schemes. Trusting the words of Mohit and Suraj, the complainant and Sachin opened accounts in the Axis Bank but after doing so, Mohit and Suraj did not give them their passbooks, cheque books, ATM etc. After some days, the bank officials visited their houses and made inquiries, thereby revealing that huge transactions were taking place in their accounts. Since the complainant and Sachin were completely unaware about all this, they suspected that their accounts were being used for cyber fraud. So, the complaint in question was made to take action against aforesaid Mohit and Suraj.

¶19

During investigation, it came to the notice of the police that after opening of accounts by different people, the aforesaid Mohit and Suraj used to sell the documents of account holder to the co-accused Narender (present petitioner) in lieu of commission of Rs.5,000/- each. In this way, bank credentials of account holders like complainant were used to transfer huge amounts from cyber fraud.

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and he has been nominated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of aforesaid Mohit. As per the allegations, he (Mohit) sold the account details of the complainant to the petitioner, which were misused. Apart from this, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the offence in question. Learned counsel has further urged that co-accused Mohit has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 20.06.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. The petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2025.

¶21

Challan has already been presented and trial of the case is likely to take time. MONIKA 2025.08.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-26254-2025

¶23

3

¶24

Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted concession of regular bail.

¶25

Status Report has already been filed on behalf of respondent – State and Custody Certificate dated 05.08.2025, filed today in Court, is taken on record.

¶26

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail petition while contending that the petitioner, in connivance with other co-accused, used to open the bank accounts of innocent people, by be-fooling them, stating that the money would be received in their accounts under various Government scheme(s) and used to keep their pass-books, cheque-books, ATMs etc. with them and misusing them later. So, keeping in view the mala fide intentions of the petitioner to open the bank accounts of others and operating them without their consent and that too, for cyber frauds, he does not deserve the concession of bail.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

¶28

As per the record of the case, except the disclosure statement, no material has been placed on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. As per the Custody Certificate dated 05.08.2025, which has been placed on record, the petitioner has already undergone custody of 05 months and 01 day. Trial of the case is going on. Challan has already been presented and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

¶29

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is

¶30

MONIKA 2025.08.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-M-26254-2025

¶32

4

¶33

ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶34

However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.

¶35

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.

¶36

August 11, 2025

¶37

monika

¶38

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE

¶39

Whether speaking/reasoned ?	Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?	Yes/No.

¶40

MONIKA 2025.08.12 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Narender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chand Vs Rajbir Singh

Rijwan Vs State of Haryana

Om Parkash Vs Gulshan Kumar Alias Sonu and Another

Jyoti and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mangal Singh @ Manga Ghori Vs State of Punjab

Rajat Dawra and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others