Allowed

Rohit v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CRM-M/33430/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner in a cyber fraud case under the BNS and BNSS. The investigation was completed, antecedents were clean, and prolonged custody served no useful purpose. Bail was ordered upon furnishing surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Rohit Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

221

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No.33430 of 2026 Date of Decision:-10.09.2026

Rohit

…..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

¶10

¶11

Present:Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Bhuvan Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶13

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J . (ORAL)

¶14

The prayer in the present petition instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’), is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.124 dated 15.10.2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Sector-12/20, Panchkula, under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’).

¶15

On a complaint submitted by one Brijpal Rana, the FIR in question was registered. It was alleged that he had received certain messages on his WhatsApp from an unknown mobile phone number which contained a telegram link. When he clicked on the same, he was added to a

¶16

YAG DUTT 2026.09.10 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶17

CRM-M No.33430 of 2026 -2-

¶18

group administered by a person named Dheeraj. He was told that he could earn profit of 40% on his investment. Accordingly, he invested a sum of Rs.3,46,500/- which was transferred by him in different accounts. When he attempted to withdraw the amount he had invested, he was unable to do so. He then realized that he had been defrauded.

¶19

The petitioner was arrested on 31.01.2026 and it was found that a sum of Rs.72,500/- had been transferred in his account.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 31.01.2026. He submits that a sum of Rs.72,500/- received in the account of the petitioner has already been refunded by him. He further submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean; investigation has been completed; charges have been framed; however, out of 07 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined; trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶21

Per contra , learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that it is a case of cyber fraud and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond. She further submits that 09 other complaints have been received on the Portal as regards this account.

¶22

However, on a query raised by the Court, learned State counsel is unable to state as to whether any amount was received in this account pertaining to those complaints.

¶23

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

¶24

YAG DUTT 2026.09.10 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶25

CRM-M No.33430 of 2026 -3-

¶26

for the parties.

¶27

The petitioner is in custody since 31.01.2026. More than seven months have elapsed. The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. Investigation has been completed. Final report has been submitted. Out of 07 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. Trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.

¶28

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

¶29

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) September 10, 2026 JUDGE Yag Dutt

¶30

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶31

YAG DUTT 2026.09.10 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Rohit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases