CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 1 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH CRM-M-28312-2026 (O&M) PIYUSH RAIKWWAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HAARYANA ...Respondent 1 The daate when the judgment is reserveed 28.07.2026 2 The daate when the judgment is pronouunced 29.07.2026 3 The daate when the judgment is uploadded on the 29.07.2026 websitte 4 Whethher only operative part of the juddgment is Full pronouunced or whether the full judgmeent is pronouunced 5 The deelay, if any, of the pronouncemeent of full Not applicable judgmment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HOON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANNISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate forr the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATTRA, J. 1. Thee instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sectionn 483 of Bharatiyaa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20223 (for short “BNSS”) for grantt of regular bail inn case arising out of FIR No.2210 dated 09.06.2025 registeredd under Sections 3318(4), 319, 336, 338, 340, 61(22) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyayaa Sanhita, 2023 (ffor short “BNS”) and Section 666D of IT Act at Police Stationn Cyber West Disttrict Gurugram. 2. Thee aforementioned FIR was regisstered on the basis of a writtenn complaint submiitted by the complainant that inn January 2025, he had receivedd messages from oone female who was administrattor of a Whatsapp group namedd AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 2 “Key to Wealth””. By representing that she wass part of a company which wass subsidiary Comppany of Investment Group underr the name of Indmoney Privatee Limited, she joinned him in the above named grroup and induced him to join aa stock market grooup through the App of her commpany named as “Indmoney PV”” by representing that her company dealt in stockk market and used to buy largee number of sharees on lower rates and alluring him on the ground of fetchingg handsome profits. He was induced to invest a hhuge amount of money and wass made to believe that he had earned profit of a sum of Rs.1,26,78,750/- on hiss investment. Wheen he applied for withdrawal of money on necessity havingg arisen, he was aasked to deposit 30% of the to tal profit earned on account off Short Term Capiital Gain Tax to the tune of Rs.411,02,226/-. He had deposited thee said amount alsoo but then came to know that hhe had been duped of a sum off Rs.1,46,71,187/- . As such, he prayed for taking aaction in the matter.

3. Afteer registration of FIR, investigatiion proceeding were initiated. Itt was revealed thaat money from the bank accounnt of the complainant had beenn transferred to diffferent bank accounts. The reccords of the beneficiary accountt numbers were obbtained, which transpired that a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- had beenn transferred to thhe beneficiary account No.345520210000663 operative in thee name of Piyushh Enterprises, Jhansi, which waas shown to be a firm of thee petitioner and coo-accused Sonu Vishawkarma annd Pawan Koshtaa. All of themm joined investigat ion in this case on 26.09.2025 annd were arrested. The petitionerr suffered disclosuure statement to the effect that by joining the co-accused Sonii Vishawkarma annd Pawan Koshtaa, he had openeed a firm in the name of Piyushh Enterprises by uusing his e-mail ID and cellphonne No. and also got opened thee AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 3

aforementioned bbank account in the name of the said firm. He disclosed that thee said bank accounnt, passbook, user name and passsword of net banking and SIMM card and the celllphone which was registered aat the time of opening the bankk account had be en handed over to accused SSonu Vishawkarma and Pawann Koshtaa. He ddisclosed that he had receive d commission to the tune off Rs.20,000/- and the co-accused had assured to ggive more commission on creditt of the amount off money received by way of fraaudulent transactions but did nott give the same too him. Investigation qua the ppetitioner and above-named co--accused stands cooncluded.

4. It iss argued by learned counsel forr the petitioner that he was nott named in the FIRR and has been falsely implicateed on the basis of a banking traill showing transferr of Rs.14,50,000/- from the acccount of the complainant to thee account of the fifirm operated by him. In fact, hhis bank account and cellphonee had been taken bby the co-accused in lieu of a suum of Rs.20,000/- and they weree operating the samme. A settlement has been arriived at between the complainantt and himself and a settlement deed was executedd on 06.03.2026, in pursuance off which the petitiooner handed over a demand drafft for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to thee complainant. Thhe co-accused Sharad Kant Mishhra has been extended benefit off bail. He is in ccustody since 26.09.2025. His further incarceration would nott serve any useful purpose. He had no direct rolee, inducement, representation orr operation of thee alleged investment scheme. Main allegations have beenn levelled against oother accused persons. His imp lication is only on the basis of aa transaction of Rss.14,50,000/- which was routed through the bank account of hiss AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 4 firm. His anteceedents are clean. The chances of conclusion of the trial in thee near future are blleak. It is, thus, argued that he ddeserves to be released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegationss against the petitiooner are serious in nature. It is nnot a case of simple cheating butt of a cyber crimee. The petitioner was one of th e important link in the chain off this crime. Onlyy on account of the fact that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs has beenn paid by him too the complainant cannot be cconsidered to be a reason forr extending benefiit of bail to him. It is, thus, urgged that the petition liable to bee dismissed. 6. Thiss Court has heard the rival submmissions made by learned counsell for the parties at considerable length.

7. Thee petitioner is alleged to be a member of the gang of cyberr fraudsters who dduped the complainant of an ammount of Rs.1,46,71,187/-. Thee bank account oppened by the petitioner in the naame of firm operated by him iss shown to be useed as beneficiary bank accountt in first layer. An amount off Rs.14,50,000/- frrom the account of the complainnant was transferred to this bankk account. Thoughh an amount of Rs.2 lakhs is cl aimed to have been returned byy the petitioner to the complainant, in pursuance oof some settlement, however, inn the opinion of thhis Court no relevance can be givven to this fact at this stage. Thee allegations reveaaled active complicity of the peetitioner in the cyber crime andd also clearly indiicate his involvement in operatiional layer of a well-organizedd cyber fraud wherrein a retired person is duped off a substantial amount of money.. The magnitude of the amount involved, the oorganized manner in which thee AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 5

offence was alleegedly committed and the petitiioner's alleged role prima faciee reflect gravity off the allegations levelled against him. Such like cases are on risee and everyday on e hears about innocent persons bbeing duped of their hard earnedd money. The appprehension raised by the responddent that he may commit similarr offences or absccond cannot be stated to be unnfounded at this stage. Simplyy because he has eentered into some compromise wwith the complainant cannot bee considered to be sufficient reason for extending benefit of bail to the petitioner.. The simple pleaa that he was not named in the FIR does not inspire anyy confidence at thhis stage particularly when his role is clearly emerged duringg investigation. Thhe offence committed by him caannot be stated to be an isolatedd act but part of aan organized cyber fraud. Suchh offences are serious economicc crimes affecting not only the victims but also thhe financial system at large and,, therefore, requirees a strict approach at the stage oof grant of bail. Keeping in vieww the gravity of thee allegations, the manner in whicch the offences were committed,, the part played bby the petitioner, the quantum o f sentence which the convictionn may entail and tthe attendant facts and circumsstances but without meaning too make any commment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the consideredd opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the samee is dismissed.

8. It iss made clear that any observationn made herein above is only forr the purpose of ddeciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearingg on the merits of tthe case. AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 6 9. Sincce the main petition has been diismissed, pending application, iff any, is rendered iinfructuous. (MMANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 29.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yees/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 1 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJABB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHH CRM-M-28312-2026 (O&M) PIYUSH RAIKWWAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HAARYANA ...Respondent 1 The daate when the judgment is reserveed 28.07.2026 2 The daate when the judgment is pronouunced 29.07.2026 3 The daate when the judgment is uploadded on the 29.07.2026 websitte 4 Whethher only operative part of the juddgment is Full pronouunced or whether the full judgmeent is pronouunced 5 The deelay, if any, of the pronouncemeent of full Not applicable judgmment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HOON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANNISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate forr the petitioner Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATTRA, J. 1. Thee instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sectionn 483 of Bharatiyaa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20223 (for short “BNSS”) for grantt of regular bail inn case arising out of FIR No.2210 dated 09.06.2025 registeredd under Sections 3318(4), 319, 336, 338, 340, 61(22) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyayaa Sanhita, 2023 (ffor short “BNS”) and Section 666D of IT Act at Police Stationn Cyber West Disttrict Gurugram. 2. Thee aforementioned FIR was regisstered on the basis of a writtenn complaint submiitted by the complainant that inn January 2025, he had receivedd messages from oone female who was administrattor of a Whatsapp group namedd AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 2 “Key to Wealth””. By representing that she wass part of a company which wass subsidiary Comppany of Investment Group underr the name of Indmoney Privatee Limited, she joinned him in the above named grroup and induced him to join aa stock market grooup through the App of her commpany named as “Indmoney PV”” by representing that her company dealt in stockk market and used to buy largee number of sharees on lower rates and alluring him on the ground of fetchingg handsome profits. He was induced to invest a hhuge amount of money and wass made to believe that he had earned profit of a sum of Rs.1,26,78,750/- on hiss investment. Wheen he applied for withdrawal of money on necessity havingg arisen, he was aasked to deposit 30% of the to tal profit earned on account off Short Term Capiital Gain Tax to the tune of Rs.411,02,226/-. He had deposited thee said amount alsoo but then came to know that hhe had been duped of a sum off Rs.1,46,71,187/- . As such, he prayed for taking aaction in the matter.

3. Afteer registration of FIR, investigatiion proceeding were initiated. Itt was revealed thaat money from the bank accounnt of the complainant had beenn transferred to diffferent bank accounts. The reccords of the beneficiary accountt numbers were obbtained, which transpired that a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- had beenn transferred to thhe beneficiary account No.345520210000663 operative in thee name of Piyushh Enterprises, Jhansi, which waas shown to be a firm of thee petitioner and coo-accused Sonu Vishawkarma annd Pawan Koshtaa. All of themm joined investigat ion in this case on 26.09.2025 annd were arrested. The petitionerr suffered disclosuure statement to the effect that by joining the co-accused Sonii Vishawkarma annd Pawan Koshtaa, he had openeed a firm in the name of Piyushh Enterprises by uusing his e-mail ID and cellphonne No. and also got opened thee AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 3

aforementioned bbank account in the name of the said firm. He disclosed that thee said bank accounnt, passbook, user name and passsword of net banking and SIMM card and the celllphone which was registered aat the time of opening the bankk account had be en handed over to accused SSonu Vishawkarma and Pawann Koshtaa. He ddisclosed that he had receive d commission to the tune off Rs.20,000/- and the co-accused had assured to ggive more commission on creditt of the amount off money received by way of fraaudulent transactions but did nott give the same too him. Investigation qua the ppetitioner and above-named co--accused stands cooncluded.

4. It iss argued by learned counsel forr the petitioner that he was nott named in the FIRR and has been falsely implicateed on the basis of a banking traill showing transferr of Rs.14,50,000/- from the acccount of the complainant to thee account of the fifirm operated by him. In fact, hhis bank account and cellphonee had been taken bby the co-accused in lieu of a suum of Rs.20,000/- and they weree operating the samme. A settlement has been arriived at between the complainantt and himself and a settlement deed was executedd on 06.03.2026, in pursuance off which the petitiooner handed over a demand drafft for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to thee complainant. Thhe co-accused Sharad Kant Mishhra has been extended benefit off bail. He is in ccustody since 26.09.2025. His further incarceration would nott serve any useful purpose. He had no direct rolee, inducement, representation orr operation of thee alleged investment scheme. Main allegations have beenn levelled against oother accused persons. His imp lication is only on the basis of aa transaction of Rss.14,50,000/- which was routed through the bank account of hiss AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 4 firm. His anteceedents are clean. The chances of conclusion of the trial in thee near future are blleak. It is, thus, argued that he ddeserves to be released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the allegationss against the petitiooner are serious in nature. It is nnot a case of simple cheating butt of a cyber crimee. The petitioner was one of th e important link in the chain off this crime. Onlyy on account of the fact that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs has beenn paid by him too the complainant cannot be cconsidered to be a reason forr extending benefiit of bail to him. It is, thus, urgged that the petition liable to bee dismissed. 6. Thiss Court has heard the rival submmissions made by learned counsell for the parties at considerable length.

7. Thee petitioner is alleged to be a member of the gang of cyberr fraudsters who dduped the complainant of an ammount of Rs.1,46,71,187/-. Thee bank account oppened by the petitioner in the naame of firm operated by him iss shown to be useed as beneficiary bank accountt in first layer. An amount off Rs.14,50,000/- frrom the account of the complainnant was transferred to this bankk account. Thoughh an amount of Rs.2 lakhs is cl aimed to have been returned byy the petitioner to the complainant, in pursuance oof some settlement, however, inn the opinion of thhis Court no relevance can be givven to this fact at this stage. Thee allegations reveaaled active complicity of the peetitioner in the cyber crime andd also clearly indiicate his involvement in operatiional layer of a well-organizedd cyber fraud wherrein a retired person is duped off a substantial amount of money.. The magnitude of the amount involved, the oorganized manner in which thee AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 5

offence was alleegedly committed and the petitiioner's alleged role prima faciee reflect gravity off the allegations levelled against him. Such like cases are on risee and everyday on e hears about innocent persons bbeing duped of their hard earnedd money. The appprehension raised by the responddent that he may commit similarr offences or absccond cannot be stated to be unnfounded at this stage. Simplyy because he has eentered into some compromise wwith the complainant cannot bee considered to be sufficient reason for extending benefit of bail to the petitioner.. The simple pleaa that he was not named in the FIR does not inspire anyy confidence at thhis stage particularly when his role is clearly emerged duringg investigation. Thhe offence committed by him caannot be stated to be an isolatedd act but part of aan organized cyber fraud. Suchh offences are serious economicc crimes affecting not only the victims but also thhe financial system at large and,, therefore, requirees a strict approach at the stage oof grant of bail. Keeping in vieww the gravity of thee allegations, the manner in whicch the offences were committed,, the part played bby the petitioner, the quantum o f sentence which the convictionn may entail and tthe attendant facts and circumsstances but without meaning too make any commment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the consideredd opinion that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the samee is dismissed.

8. It iss made clear that any observationn made herein above is only forr the purpose of ddeciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearingg on the merits of tthe case. AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-28312--2026 (O&M) 6 9. Sincce the main petition has been diismissed, pending application, iff any, is rendered iinfructuous. (MMANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 29.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yees/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.29 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.