Allowed¶6

Krishan Shah v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2026CRM-M/72556/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; cyber crime/fraud gang; SIM card misuse; FIR No.86 dated 21.07.2025; P.S. Cyber Crime U.T. Chandigarh; Sections 308(2)/319(2)/318(4)/336(3)/338/340(2)/61(2) BNS; Section 66-D IT Act; Sections 42(1)/42(3)(E) Telecommunication Act 2023; co-accused already on bail; charges framed 14.11.2025; 3 of 18 witnesses examined; custody 5 months 13 days; bail conditions; cancellation of bail. Use for: bail orders in cyber-fraud prosecutions involving young accused with parity of co-accused release and early trial stage.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the petitioners upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to conditions (i)-(ix); photocopy of the order to be placed on connected files; State free to seek cancellation on breach of conditions.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, arraigned in FIR No.86 dated 21.07.2025 (cyber-crime fraud case) and in custody over 5 months, should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

¶1

Court's answer

The petitioners were ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Release was made subject to enumerated conditions, including no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance on every fixed date, no similar offence, no inducement/dissuasion of witnesses, no misuse of liberty, furnishing of addresses and mobile numbers by affidavit until conclusion of trial, no departure from the country without prior permission of the trial Court, and liberty to the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate to impose further conditions.

¶6

Key takeaways

In the event of breach of the imposed conditions, the State is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted by the order.ratio¶7
The observations in the order are limited to the present proceedings and are not to be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case; the trial is to proceed independently of them.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS granted to two petitioners (aged 19 and 22) in FIR No.86 dated 21.07.2025, P.S. Cyber Crime, District U.T. Chandigarh, registered under Sections 308(2), 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) BNS, Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act and Sections 42(1), 42(3)(E) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 (added later). Basis apparent from the order: custody of 5 months and 13 days (per custody certificates dated 08.01.2026), co-accused Abhijeet Tiwari, Akash Kumar, Vipin Kumar, Mohd. Sohali Akhtar Ansari and Saroj Kumar already enlarged on bail, charges framed 14.11.2025 with only 3 of 18 PWs examined, and no other case against the petitioners; the State's contention of specific gang-participation allegations was not controverted on those points. Release ordered on furnishing bail/surety bonds, with conditions including no tampering with evidence, no witness intimidation, appearance on every date, no similar offence, affidavit-bound addresses/mobile numbers, no departure from the country without permission, and discretion to impose further conditions; breach entitles the State to seek cancellation. Observations expressly limited to the proceedings, without opinion on merits.

¶1

Prayer in the present petitions filed under Section 483 BNSS is for gra n t of regular bail to the petitio n ers in case FI R No.86 dated 21.07.2025 , registered under Sections 308( 2 ), 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS, Section 66-D o f the Information Technology Act and S e ctions 42(1), 42(3)(E) of the T elecommunication Act, 2023 (added late r on) at Police Station Cyber Cri m e, District U.T. Chandigarh. 2. Learned counsel contends th a t the petitioners, 19 and 22 years old, h ave been in custody for the la s t 5 months and 13 days. They

¶2

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.09 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶3

allege false implication. In fact, their IDs were misused to purchase SIM Cards. Co-accused, namely, Abhijeet Tiwari, Akash Kumar, Vipin Kumar and Mohd. Sohali Akhtar Ansari and Saroj Kumar have since been granted bail. Charges have been framed on 14.11.2025, however, 3 out of 18 PWs have been examined. The petitioners are not involved in any other case.

¶4

The custody certificates dated 08.01.2026, filed by learned State counsel are taken on record. As per the same, the petitioners are behind bars for 5 months and 13 days.

¶5

Learned APP opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioners of being a part of gang of fraudsters. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to the stage of trial, co-accused having been enlarged on bail and the petitioners being not involved in any other case.

¶6

¶7

The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial

¶8

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.09 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶9

Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶11

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

¶12

(iii) The petitioners will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless are exempted by a specific order of Court.

¶13

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, they are accused, or for commission of which they are suspected of.

¶14

(v) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶15

(vi) The petitioners shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

¶16

(vii) The petitioners shall furnish their addresses and mobile numbers by way of affidavits to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, they seek to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court.

¶17

(viii) The petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶18

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioners.

¶19

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of

¶20

the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioners by this order.

¶21

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.09 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶22

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

¶23

Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file(s).

¶24

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.01.09 13:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Krishan Shah v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Shah v. State of Punjab

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

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jiwan Dass and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Chamakdeep Singh Alias Nimma Vs State of Punjab

Bindu Singh Alias Binder Vs State of Punjab