Gautam Talwar Vs State of Haryana

At the outset, learned State counsel has filed the status report dated 20.04.2026, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶15

Copy thereof has been handed over to the opposite counsel.

¶16

The instant petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, during the pendency of trial, who has been booked in a criminal case arising

¶17

out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-

¶18

Name of	FIR	Date	Section(s)	Police	District
Petitioner(s)	No.			Station
Gautam Talwar	05	15.01.2024	420, 201, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC	Cyber Crime	Sonepat

¶19

The complainant – Puneet Chawla, got registered an FIR bearing

¶20

POONAM 2026.04.30 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-3352-2026 - 2 -

¶22

No.05 dated 15.01.2024, alleging therein that he had invested a sum of ₹25,45,000/- in share trading through an online platform. However, when he attempted to withdraw the said amount, he was informed over a mobile call that unless he deposits an additional sum of 10,00,000/-, his request for₹ withdrawal would not be processed. Upon verification, it was revealed that he had already been duped and had fallen victim to a cyber crime, having been cheated of the amount of 25,45,000/-.₹

¶23

From the status report dated 20.04.2026, learned State counsel submits that the details of the investments made by the complainant from 06.12.2023 to 04.01.2024 in the share market, as well as the particulars of the amounts deposited by him from his Bank Account No. 02195110000189 maintained with Yes Bank, IFSC Code YESB00000, have been furnished. The said details reflect deposits made during the period from 06.12.2023 to 04.01.2024, aggregating to a total sum of 25,45,000/-.₹

¶24

From the perusal of the status report, learned State counsel seeks to project that upon suspicion arising on 22.10.2024, Harpreet Singh, proprietor of Bank Account No. 3709002100113496 with Punjab National Bank, was arrested. During interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he not only admitted his guilt but also named the other co-accused, namely Shugun Dubey, Anuj, and Gautam Talwar (petitioner herein). As per the disclosure statement of Harpreet Singh, he was paid a commission of ₹60,000/- for opening each such account.

¶25

However, status report does not disclose whether said Harpreet Singh had opened any other bank account in any other bank. Even upon being specifically asked by this Court, learned State counsel, could not

¶26

POONAM 2026.04.30 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-3352-2026 - 3 -

¶28

furnish particulars of any other bank accounts purportedly opened by Harpreet Singh.

¶29

Furthermore, from the status report, it is also not evident that apart the disclosure statement of co-accused Harpreet Singh, what other incriminating material is available with the prosecution to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner is directly involved in either opening the said account or receiving any share of the amount with which the complainant has been defrauded.

¶30

During the course of hearing, another fact which has come to light is that at the time when the co-accused – Harpreet Singh, made his disclosure statement, present petitioner – Gautam Talwar, was already in police custody in connection with FIR No.205, dated 29.07.2024, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of IT Act, at Police Station Cyber Crime West Gurugram, Gurugram.

¶31

Even, it has not been pointed out by the learned State counsel whether, during the course of interrogation pursuant to the petitioner’s arrest in FIR No.205/2024, any disclosure statement was recorded implicating the petitioner in the present offence.

¶32

Therefore, after considering all the facts and circumstances and examining the matter from every relevant angle, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any unimpeachable and admissible evidence directly connecting the petitioner, it would place a heavy burden upon the prosecution to establish the charges against the petitioner.

¶33

Apart the aforementioned, all the alleged offences are subject matter of magisterial trial and petitioner is already there inside jail, w.e.f.,

¶34

POONAM 2026.04.30 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-3352-2026 - 4 -

¶36

21.12.2024. At this stage, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner’s possession and the case would much depend upon the documentary, scientific and electronic evidence.

¶37

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. However, he is unable to controvert any of the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner or those recorded here-above. It is submitted by learned State counsel that the petitioner is also involved in another case of a similar nature.

¶38

However, in response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the said case, petitioner has already been granted the concession of bail.

¶39

Considering the totality of circumstances, and the submissions addressed by both sides, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner.

¶40

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed . Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶41

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

¶42