***

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. –

1. 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.0043 dated 22.01.2026 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Cyber Crime, NIT Faridabad, District Faridabad.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Krishan’, hereinafter being referred to as “complainant” only. It was stated by the complainant that on 20.10.2025 he received a friend request on his Facebook ID from one ‘Sangmitra Pandey’, and that, after accepting her request ‘Tanupriya’ shared her Whatsapp number, and they started chatting with each other. As per complainant, she induced him to invest in online trading by projecting that he would book huge profits. According to complainant, she sent him a link on Whatsapp for creating a trading account. The complainant further alleged that he believed and created trading account and transferred money on many occasions. As per complainant he was defrauded for a total sum of Rs.91,50,000/-, on the pretext of investment in trading and payment of tax for withdrawal of the alleged profits.

3. It the case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged and investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation her co-accused ‘Mohd. Afzal’ and ‘Mupish Ali’ (the petitioner herein) were arrested on 06.02.2026 and during technical examination of ‘Mupish Ali’s’ mobile phone it was found that a sum of Rs.1200/- had been transferred from the bank account of the co-accused ‘Tanupriya’ to the bank account of ‘Mupish Ali’(the petitioner herein), and co-accused ‘Tanupriya’ was using the email ID of co-accused ‘Sparsh’, and that she was in touch with co-accused ‘Manoj’ and ‘Sparsh’ through Whatsapp application and was helping them.

4. As per prosecution during the course of further examination it was found that petitioner facilitated the co-accused Mohd. Afzal in opening a bank account in lieu of a commission of Rs.80,000/- through which the cheated amount was routed. It has further been alleged that pursuant to the disclosure statement of the petitioner an amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

6. Notice of motion.

7. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Ms. Deepali Verma, Asstt. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. Status report has already been filed by the State. The same be taken on record.

8. Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of complainant. He has filed Power of Attorney. The same, too, be taken on record.

9. Heard.

10. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean antecedents, and that in the present case, he has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than five and half months. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, and that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail.

11. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel the petitioner was a member of a syndicate involved in Cyber fraud, and that in the present case ‘Sparsh’, the prime accused is still at large, and therefore, the investigation is still in progress. However, it has been conceded by learned State counsel that qua petitioner challan has been filed.

12. The record has been perused carefully.

13. 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 abovementioned offence is imprisonment up to seven years;

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

iv) that the petitioner has clean antecedents;

v) that qua petitioner investigation is complete, and therefore, nothing has been left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;

vi) that the only evidence collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner, is the disclosure statement of his coaccused, which was recorded by the police when he was in custody. Thus, there is a question mark with regard to admissibility of above-mentioned statement in evidence, and its credibility. Since pursuant to above-mentioned disclosure statement of co-accused recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact has not taken place and prima facie the abovementioned statement appears to be hit by Section-23 of ‘the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023’.

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

viii) that 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.

14. 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 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”.

15. 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”.

16. 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 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”.

17. 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.

18. 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 to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

19. 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 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.

Petition allowed.

********