Umesh Kumar Garg Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Umesh Kumar Garg Vs State of Haryana — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, without commenting on the merits, subject to the three conditions stated in paragraph 15 (no inducement/threat/promise to dissuade disclosure; address to be furnished and changes notified till final decision of trial; no departure from India without prior permission of the trial Court).

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody for over three and a half months in connection with FIR No.367 dated 04.10.2025 (Sections 318(4), 61(2) BNS 2023, alleged cyber-fraud loss of Rs.71,79,000/-), is entitled to the benefit of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023.

Court's answer

Taking the cumulative effect of the factors listed by the Court — offence triable by the Judicial Magistrate with a maximum punishment of seven years; custody exceeding three and a half months; nothing left to be recovered from the petitioner; the only evidence against him being a co-accused's disclosure statement of questionable admissibility recorded while the co-accused was in custody and yielding no incriminating recovery; no recovery from the petitioner and no documentary evidence that any part of the proceeds of crime reached him; trial not likely to conclude in the near future; detention in judicial lock-up serving no useful purpose; and nothing on record to show likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses — the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.

Ratio / Principle

The right to speedy trial is part of the reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cannot be denied to the accused, as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Key takeaways

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed: the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions — (i) no direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade disclosure; (ii) furnishing of address at execution of bond and notification of any change to the trial Court until final decision of the trial; and (iii) not leaving India without prior permission of the trial Court.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — first petition under S.483 BNSS 2023 — FIR No.367 dated 04.10.2025, P.S. Cyber East, District Gurugram; offences under ss.318(4) and 61(2) BNS 2023 — complainant allegedly cheated of Rs.71,79,000/- through a '360 ONE' facebook link and 'Fin Vault Pro' trading account; only Rs.3,10,000/- recovered — offence triable by Judicial Magistrate, maximum punishment seven years; petitioner in custody over three and a half months — nothing left to recover from petitioner; no documentary evidence that any proceeds of crime were received by him; sole material is disclosure statement of co-accused recorded while in custody with nothing incriminating recovered pursuant thereto, its admissibility questionable — trial unlikely to conclude in near future; detention serving no useful purpose; nothing to show tampering or witness influence — principles in Dataram (2018) 3 SCC 22, Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51, Tapas Kumar Palit 2025 SCC Online SC 322 and Balwinder Singh 2024 SCC Online SC 4354 relied upon; speedy trial a facet of Article 21 — petitioner held entitled to bail; petition allowed without comment on merits; release on personal and surety bonds to satisfaction of trial Court subject to conditions (no inducement/threat/promise; address particulars; no exit from India without trial Court permission).

CRM-M-7904-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

110

CRM-M-7904-2026 Date of decision: 10.04.2026

UMESH KUMAR GARG

......PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

. ..... RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate & Mr. Vardaan Seth, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana

Mr. Yaman, Advocate for the complainant.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.367 dated 04.10.2025 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Cyber East, District Gurugram.

Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-7904-2026

this case came into being at the instance of ‘Vijay Grover’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. In his complaint addressed to Cyber Crime, Police Station East, Gurugram, it was alleged by the complainant that he was subjected to a cyber fraud in the name of investment, and that he lost a sum of Rs.71,79,000/- on account of above-said fraud. According to complainant he had received a facebook link in the name of ‘360 ONE’, and that after clicking on the above-mentioned link he was made a member of a group and his trading account was created in the name of ‘Fin Vault Pro’. As per complainant subsequently his account was opened in the bank’ and that he invested money through above-mentioned account, but later on found that the account belonged to the fraudster.

It is the case of the prosecution on the basis of above-mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and further investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation it transpired that the account, wherein the money was received, belonged to the co-accused, namely ‘Ashish Goyal’, and that the same was being operated by his wife ‘Dolly Goyal’. It has been further alleged by the prosecution that in the investigation, it has also been revealed that the above-mentioned account was provided by the petitioner to the co-accused ‘Lakshay Nanda’ and in that regard a disclosure statement was suffered by the co-accused, namely ‘Ashish Goyal’.

Status report and custody certificate have been filed by learned State counsel. The same be taken on record.

Heard.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-7904-2026

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, for which the maximum punishment prescribed under the law is seven years. It has also been contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three and half months, and nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner.

The learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned counsel for the complainant in the present case the fraud, to which the petitioner has been subjected to, is to the tune of Rs.71,79,000/-, and that out of above-mentioned money only Rs.3,10,000/- has been recovered so far, despite the fact that the money transacted through bank accounts. The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that the offence is serious in nature, and if released on bail, there are chances that the petitioner may misuse the same.

The record has been perused carefully.

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a

decision: -

i) that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate;

ii) that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence is imprisonment up to seven years:

iii) that the petitioner is already in custody for a period of more than three and half months;

iv) that nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner.

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-7904-2026

v) that against the petitioner the only evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is disclosure statement of co-accused. There is a question mark with regard to admissibility of abovementioned disclosure statement as the same was recorded when the co-accused was already in custody and pursuant to abovementioned disclosure statement nothing incriminating has been recovered;

vi) that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner and there is no documentary evidence to show that any part of proceed of crime was received by the petitioner;

vii) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;

viii) that the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any useful purpose;

ix) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses;

x) that there is nothing on record to show that if released on bail, the petitioner will not co-operate/participate in the trial.

In the present case, the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another’, (2018) 3 SCC 22, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that “a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-7904-2026

an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case”.

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that “the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice”.

Recently, in the case of ‘Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’, 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that “if an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-7904-2026

six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed”. It has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case that “delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently”.

To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by Hon’ble Apex court in “Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and Another”, 2024 SCC Online SC 4354.

If the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is hereby allowed . The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However the abovesaid concession shall be subject to following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-7904-2026

Court or to any other authority.

(ii) that the petitioner shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Court concerned and shall notify the change in address to the trial Court, till the final decision of the trial; and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE

10.04.2026 vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

VIPIN KUMAR 2026.04.10 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document