Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mo. Sameer Alias Mohd. Sameer vs State Of Haryana on 5 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228
CRM-M-67563-2025
Date of decision: 05.12.2025
MO. SAMEER ALIAS MOHD. SAMEER ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA .......Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Ms. Sonal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
(Through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Himanshu Rajput, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
The instant first petition has been filed under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 104 dated 21.07.2025, registered under Section(s) 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 at Police Station Cyber Crime, Rewari, District Rewari.
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2025 23:35:25 ::: CRM-M-67563-2025 -2-
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are as under:-
"1 request that I, Anuja Jain W/o Amit Jain, resident of H.No. 3327A/265, Jai Mala Bhawan, Near Jain Temple Nasiya Ji, Circular Road Rewari Police Station City Rewari and I do domestic work. On 03-07-2015, conversation started with @vamika 74123 from my husband's Telegram ID and he told me about playing a task, which I thought would earn me some money, so 1 gave my husband's email ID, name, date of birth, mobile number and joined a telegram ID @ICECOINE_952 who told her name as Neha Sharma and Neha used to send me the task links on telegram, 1 deposited Rs.1010/- in Guru, they returned me Rs.1513/- and in the next task I deposited Rs. 3010/- , then they returned Rs.4313/-, after that I deposited Rs. 7100/- in the next task, for which they did not send any task. When I started talking, he said that you did wrong, now you will have to deposit Rs. 28960/-, then I gave it from my bank account no. 32882924996 on 05-07-2025, I deposited it through Paytm from number 9315063064 through UPI ID 518635688335 and after that he asked me to deposit Rs98,840/-, which I transferred Rs. 50,000/- from my account through UPI ID 518637662595 and I deposited Rs. 48,840/- in the account of husband's friend Anil Kumar through UPI ID 687368923485 through 51034735618. After that he asked me to deposit Rs.2,15,332/- so I deposited Rs.50,000/- in my above mentioned account on 06-07-2025 through UPI ID 386196652902 and Rs.45,000/- through UPI ID 518752098807 and I deposited Rs.50,000/- from account no. 38450352639 of my husband's friend's son ISHAN through UPI ID 649262136294 and Rs. 50,000/- from the bank account no. 41828830254 of ISHAN's friend Lakshay Batra through UPI ID 728146908892 and on 07-07-2025 from the above mentioned account of my husband's friend Anil Kumar Deposited Rs.20,232/- through UPI-ID 998542985130 and on the same day deposited Rs. 100/- from the above account through UPI-ID 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2025 23:35:26 ::: CRM-M-67563-2025 -3- 772825426630 which they have deposited this amount by cheating me, legal action should be taken against them and my amount of Rs.3,54,252/- should be returned to me and strict action should be taken against the accused. (Anuja Jain) 9315063064 21-07-2025 Today a complaint number 21307250030019 was received at the police station on which the complainant was informed to come to the police station with the relevant bank records, the complainant being Anuja Jain W/o Amit Jain resident of H.No. 3327A/265, Jai Mala Bhawan, Near Jain Mandir Nasiya Ji, Circular Road Rewari, came to the police station and submitted a written application, which was found to be a serious crime under section 318(4) CrPC as per the force of the application, case number 104 dated 21.07.2025 under section 318 (4) CrPC was registered and copies of the FIR were prepared through computer as per rules. Which will be sent to the service of Bajaria Post Area Magistrate and higher officials for information, and I am busy investigating the HC along with the copy of the police along with the original application.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of any bank account into which the alleged defrauded amount was transferred. He contends that the petitioner's name surfaced for the first time solely in the disclosure statement of co- accused Abhishek Verma, and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner that may lend corroboration to the said disclosure. He further contends that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 05.09.2025. Moreover, the investigation stands concluded and the charge-sheet has already been presented before the competent court. Given that the trial is magisterial in nature, it is submitted that its conclusion is likely to take considerable time. She also submits that the petitioner has 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2025 23:35:26 ::: CRM-M-67563-2025 -4- entered into a settlement with the complainant.
4. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the fact with respect to the custody of the petitioner as also the absence of recovery. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has clean antecedents.
5. Mr. Himanshu Rajput, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent-Complainant and files his power of attorney in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He acknowledges the settlement having been executed between the petitioner and the complainant.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
7. In view of the facts noticed above and bearing in mind the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, that his name surfaced only in the disclosure statement of the co-accused and that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from him, the stage of the trial, the acknowledgment of settlement by the complainant as well as the clean antecedents of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2025 23:35:26 ::: CRM-M-67563-2025 -5-
10. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
DECEMBER 05, 2025 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2025 23:35:26 :::