Vinod Kumar @ Mahesh Vs State of Haryana

¶1

CRM-M-37733-2025 -1-

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN J AB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI G ARH

¶3

222 CRM-M-37733-2025 Date of Decision: 31.10.2025

¶4

Vinod K u mar @ Mahesh …Petitioner. v. The State of Haryana …Respondent.

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY.

¶6

Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh Sangwa n , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Singh, Assistan t Advocate General, Haryana.

¶7

¶8

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral)

¶9

Petitioner, an accused in c a se FIR No. 29 dated 07.06.2 0 24, registere d against him for offences unde r Sections 406, 420 of Indian P e nal Code, at Police Station Cyber Crime, K urukshetra, has filed the pre s ent petition u n der Section 483 of BNSS for g r ant of bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on recor d be noticed h e reinbelow:-

¶10

One Aman Kumar son of H ira Lal set the criminal la w in motion b y filing a complaint pointing the r ein that he is running the busi n ess of garme n ts under the name and style o f “Hira Garments”. About a m o nth ago, a m an who claimed to be a na t ive resident of Kurukshetra a nd introduced himself as Tarkeshwar Sen, a LIC advisor, came up to him a nd told that h e could help in arranging the credit limit for the shop throu g h a bank. S omehow, he (c) got taken i n and sent all the documents to Tarkesh w ar. Later, he was informed th a t complete file has been forwar d ed

¶11

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.03 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶12

CRM-M-37733-2025 -2-

¶13

to one M a hesh, resident of Ambala. This Mahesh met him for 4-5 times. On one such occasion, when aforesaid Mahesh came to the shop and ass u red him that h e (P) could arrange a credit l imit of Rs.10-15 lakhs from K o tak Mahindr a Bank, as also that an account n eeds to be opened. His phone w as taken an d an account in Kotak Mahind r a Bank (Ladwa Branch) with the name of his (C’s) son. Further, on 2 9.4.2024, Mahesh informed t hat Rs.21,50, 0 00/- needs to be deposited i n this account. Abiding by t h ese instructions, Rs.11,50,000/- was deposite d . At about 6 PM on the same d ay, he was shocked to receive SMS vi d e which he was intimated t hat Rs.81,50, 0 00/- has been debited from hi s account. Repeated calls mad e to contact M ahesh did not yield any positi v e result. At about 7 PM, ano t her call was received intimating him that the money would be returned by 30.3.202 4 , but thereafter the said phone was switched off. Primarily w ith this bac k drop, a formal case vide FI R No. 29 dated 07.06.2024, w as registere d against him u/s 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Sta t ion Cyber Cr i me, Kurukshetra.

¶14

During investigations, state m ents of witnesses were recor d ed. Relevant documents were collected an d on culmination of investigat i on, challan q u a present petitioner Vinod and Tarkeshwar was submitted. Petitioner filed an applicat i on for bail under Section 483 of BNSS be f ore the learned Additional Ses s ions Judge, Kurukshetra. The s a me came to b e dismissed vide order dated 2 6 .05.2025. Aggrieved of which, the present p e tition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the pe t itioner submits that petitioner has been fals e ly implicated in the present c a se, the fact that the FIR has been lodged a f ter unexplained delay of four m onths, is itself indicative of fal s ity

¶15

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.03 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-37733-2025 -3-

¶17

of the ca s e set up by complainant. Lear n ed counsel further submits that the contents o f the FIR are quite vague and i n any case, petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Further, there is no c o nnecting evidence that petition e r is known t o Mahesh, nor is he the user o f mobile No. 7404205431, lear n ed counsel next contends that assuming for th e sake of arguments Rs.1,50,0 0 0/was debi t ed from the account of the co m plainant, no offence can be sai d to have bee n committed, for mere transfer of the amount to another acc o unt does not attract any criminal liability. D eliberately, facts which have c ivil under tone have been given a criminal co l our.

¶18

Learned counsel further co n tends that petitioner who has been in custod y since 10.7.2024, deserves a le n ient view to be taken in his fav o ur, for till d ate, no prosecution witness h as been examined and, thus, the possibilit y of completion of trial in nea r future is quite remote, his fur t her incarcera t ion would not serve any use f ul purpose as also that petiti o ner would ab i de by stringent conditions so i m posed by this Court while allo w ing the petiti o n. Learned counsel has also p laced on the case file orders d a ted 27.3.202 5 and 30.7.2025 passed in CR M -M-10760-2025 and in CRM - M- 24516-2025, respectively, vide which C oordinate Benches of this C o urt granted t h e concession of bail to petitio n er in two other cases, bearing F IR No. 21 d a ted 8.4.2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 20 4 of IPC, regi s tered at Police Station Cyber C rime, Kurukshetra and FIR No. 28 dated 01. 0 6.2024, under Sections 419, 42 0 , 120-B and 201 of IPC, regist e red at Police S tation Cyber Crime, Kurukshe t ra. 4. Status report by way of a ffidavit of Prateek Gahlot, IPS, Addition a l Superintendent of Police, Ku r ukshetra has been filed. In pa r a 6 thereof, i t has been stated that co-accused Tarkeshwar is the main accu s ed,

¶19

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.03 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-37733-2025 -4-

¶21

who had sent present petitioner to com p lainant for facilitating availin g of loan. O n the directions of aforesaid T a rkeshwar, account of complai n ant was opened in Kotak Mahindra Bank, L a dwa Branch and Rs.1,50,000/- w as deposite d . Misusing the trust reposed in him, petitioner transferred the amount o f complainant in the bank acc o unt of Anil Kumar. Investiga t ion reveals t h at petitioner downloaded an ‘ A PP’ in the mobile phone of so n of complain a nt and ‘ID’ was created, the p a ssword of which was known o nly to petitio n er, thus, he (P) deliberately de f rauded complainant. It has fur t her been me n tioned that both the accused in v olved in the present case, nam e ly, Tarkesh w ar and present petitioner, were arrested, who during interroga t ion confesse d their involvement in the co m mission of offence. Factum of petitione r being involved in two other cases bearing FIR No. 21 d a ted 8.4.2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 4 68, 471 and 204 of IPC, regist e red at Polic e Station Cyber Crime, Kur u kshetra and FIR No. 28 d a ted 01.06.20 2 4, under Sections 419, 420, 1 2 0-B and 201 of IPC, registere d at Police St a tion Cyber Crime, Kurukshetr a was also admitted by the lear n ed State co u nsel. In view of role of pe t itioner and his questionable p ast antecede n ts, dismissal of petition has been prayed for, as per lear n ed counsel, i f extended the concession of b a il, petitioner is likely to misuse the same by i ndulging in similar offences, b y fleeing from the process of jus t ice by not ap p earing in the Court and over-a w ing complainant and other rel a ted witnesses etc.

¶22

Heard learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the documen t s on record.

¶23

Factual aspects of the case l e ading to the registration of the F IR have alre a dy been noticed hereinabove. The role of the petitioner has a lso

¶24

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.03 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-37733-2025 -5-

¶26

been hig h lighted in the status report. Be that as it may, considering that the petitione r has been in custody since 10.7. 2 024, though challan has been f i led and char g es have been framed, but out of 16 prosecution witnesses, none has been exa m ined, the possibility of compl e tion of trial (offences being tri a ble by Magis t rate) in near future is quite re m ote, his further incarceration w o uld not only be violative of his rights unde r Article 21 of the Constitutio n of India, including right to speedy trial but w ould also be against the princ i ple of “Bail is a general rule and incarce r ation is an exception” as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 7. In case of Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin Vs. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No.4144 of 2024 decided on 04.10.2024, in a case u n der Sections 394, 395, 397, 30 7 read with 120-B of IPC, Hon ’ ble Supreme Court granted bail to the accused considering long incarcera t ion undergon e by him of 2 years and 9 mont h s.

¶27

In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2024) 9 SCC 813 , the Supreme Court w h ile granting b ail to accused for 04 years in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 hel d as under:-

¶28

“16. Criminals are not bor n but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, ne v er write off any criminal as bey o nd redemption. This humanist f undamental is often missed w h en dealing with delinquents, ju v enile and adult. Indeed, every s a int has a past and every si n ner a future. When a crim e is committed, a variety of fac t ors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social a nd

¶29

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.03 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-37733-2025 -6-

¶31

economic, may be, the re s ult of value erosion or pare n tal neglect; may be, because o f the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contra s ted with indigence or other priv a tions.

¶32

17. If the State or any p rosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wh e rewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an a c cused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the Stat e or any other prosecuting agen c y should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the c rime committed is serious. Art i cle 21 of the Constitution appli e s irrespective of the nature of the crime.”

¶33

Recently, a Co-ordinate B e nch of this Court in Neelkamal Singh Alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab p assed in CRM-M-39765-2024 has held that although an accused may h a ve past criminal antecedents but nonethel e ss if the incarceration perio d is long, he is entitled for the concessi o n of bail.

¶34

“Therefore, to elucidate fur t her, this Court is conscious o f the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy t r ial is a part of reasonable, fair a nd just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitutio n of India. This constitutional r i ght cannot be denied to the acc u sed as is the mandate of the A p ex court in “ Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC 98 . Bes i des this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction perio d of the under-trials should be a s short as possible keeping in view

¶35

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.03 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-37733-2025 -7-

¶37

the nature of accusation an d the severity of punishment in c ase of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reason a ble apprehension of tampering w ith the witness or apprehensio n of threat to the complainant. A s far as the pendency of other c a ses and involvement of the peti t ioner in other cases is concer n ed, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendere d in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled a s “ Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs.

¶38

State of Punjab ” decide d on 02.03.2023, wherein, w h ile referring Article 21 of the C onstitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the t ime of granting bail, the crim i nal antecedents of the petitione r are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally tru e that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial ha s to be looked into with referenc e to the evidence in that case a lone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pendi n g cases. In such eventuality, s t rict adherence to the rule of de n ial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions i n all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of d e nial of concession of bail.”

¶39

Learned State counsel duri n g the course of arguments, ad m its that in ot h er two cases, namely, FIR No. 21 dated 8.4.2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 204 of IPC , registered at Police Station C y ber Crime, K u rukshetra and FIR No. 28 dat e d 01.06.2024, under Sections 4 19, 420, 120 - B and 201 of IPC, registere d at Police Station Cyber Cri m e, Kuruksh e tra, petitioner has been grant e d the concession of bail by t his Court. T h us, taking note of the entire fa cts and connecting circumsta n ces brought o n record, petitioner is released o n bail subject to his furnishing b ail

¶40

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.03 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CRM-M-37733-2025 -8-

¶42

bonds al o ng with two sound surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned t rial Court/Du t y Magistrate concerned. Th e petitioner shall abide by the followin g conditions:-

¶43

(i) The petitioner will n o t tamper with the evidence du r ing the trial.

¶44

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶45

(iii) The petitioner shall n ot leave the country without p r ior permission of the trial Court . (iv) The petitioner shall n o t commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an a c cused, or for commission of w h ich he is suspected of.

¶46

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coe r ce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dis s uade him/her from disclosing s u ch facts to the Court or to an y police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶47

(vi) The petitioner shall n o t in any manner misuse his libe r ty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mo b ile number to the Trial Court f orthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of t h e trial and in case for any rea s on, the petitioner seeks to cha n ge any of the aforesaid, the s a me shall be done only with pr i or intimation to the learned Tr ial Court, stating the reason for the same. (viii) The petitioner will ap p ear before the trial Court on e a ch and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific orde r of Court.

¶48

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any o t her condition, as deemed a p propriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶49

Accordingly, the present pet i tion is allowed and it is made c l ear that in ca s e there is any breach of the afo r esaid conditions, the State shal l be

¶50

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.03 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

CRM-M-37733-2025 -9-

¶52

at liberty to seek cancellation of bail a s granted to the petitioner by t his order.

¶53

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein ar e limited for the purpose of pre s ent proceedings and would no t be construe d as an opinion on the merits of t he case and the trial would proceed independ e ntly of the aforesaid observatio n s.

¶54

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) 31.10.20 2 5 JUDGE gbs Whether Speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶55

GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.03 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vinod Kumar @ Mahesh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar @ Mahesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Narender Singh Vs Ajay Yadav

Babita Rani Vs Rakesh Kumar

Harjinder Singh @ Jinder Vs State of Punjab

Talab Masih Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh Alias Harry Vs State of Punjab