Rajat Sharma vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-19539-2026
CRM-M-47505-2026
CRM-M-43925-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
216 CRM-M-19539-2026

Rajat Sharma ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
216-2 CRM-M-47505-2026

Gurvinder Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
216-3 CRM-M-43925-2026

Manoj ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
Decided on: 11.11.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Gagandeep Goel, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CRM-M-19539-2026).
Mr. Manvinder Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CRM-M-47505-2026).
Mr. Karan Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CRM-M-43925-2026)
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J.
1. By way of this common order all the aforementioned
petitions are being disposed of .
RASHMI
2026.11.13 18:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-19539-2026
CRM-M-47505-2026
CRM-M-43925-2026 2
2. Aforementioned three petitions have been filed under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'BNSS'), by the respective petitioners, seeking the grant
of regular bail in case FIR No. 104 dated 22.03.2025, registered at Police
Station Cyber Crime West, District Gurugram, Haryana. The particulars
of the respective petitions and the offences alleged against the petitioners
are tabulated hereinbelow:—
Sr. Petition / Name of
FIR details and offences
No. Case No. petitioner
FIR No. 104 dated 22.03.2025, under
Sections 308(2), 318(4), 319, 336(3),
338 and 340 of BNS (corresponding to
Sections 384, 420, 416, 468, 467 and
471 IPC), registered at Police Station
Cyber Crime West, Gurugram,
Haryana.
CRM-M-
1. 19539-
2026
Rajat
Sharma
FIR No. 104 dated 22.03.2025, under
Sections 308(2), 318(4), 319, 336(3),
338, 340, 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS
(corresponding to Sections 384, 420,
416, 468, 467, 471, 120-B and 34
IPC), along with Section 66-D of the
Information Technology Act, registered
at Police Station Cyber Crime West,
District Gurugram, Haryana.
CRM-M-
2. 47505-
2026
Gurvinder
Singh
3. CRM-M-
43925-
2026
Manoj FIR No. 104 dated 22.03.2025, under
Sections 308(2), 318(4), 319, 336(3),
338 and 340 of BNS, read with
Sections 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS
(corresponding to Sections 384, 420,
419, 468, 467, 471, 120-B and 34
RASHMI
2026.11.13 18:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-19539-2026
CRM-M-47505-2026
CRM-M-43925-2026 3
IPC), along with Section 66-D of the
Information Technology Act, 2000,
registered at Police Station Cyber
Crime West, District Gurugram,
Haryana.
3. There are seven accused in total, namely, (i) Sandeep, (ii)
Rajat Sharma (petitioner in CRM-M-19539-2026), (iii) Manish Kumar
Beniwal, (iv) Veeru Verma, (v) Sumit Verma, (vi) Manoj (petitioner in
CRM-M-43925-2026) and (vii) Gurwinder Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-
47505-2026). All of them are accused of having perpetrated cyber fraud
to the tune of Rs.53.75 lakh, whereby the complainant, Sheela Kumari,
was subjected to digital arrest and was allegedly compelled to transfer the
aforesaid amount into different bank accounts.
4. Accused Rajat Sharma, Manish Kumar Beniwal and
Sandeep were also found to be involved in another FIR, i.e. FIR No. 26
dated 01.04.2025, registered under Sections 336(3), 338, 308, 319(2),
318(4), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS (corresponding to Sections 383,
419, 420, 468, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC), at Police Station Cyber Crime,
Chandigarh, wherein the complainant, Dalip Singh Bajwa, was allegedly
subjected to cyber fraud through the modus operandi of digital arrest,
involving an amount of approximately Rs.3.41 crore.
Thus, out of the seven accused in the present case, three
accused, namely, Sandeep, Rajat Sharma and Manish Kumar Beniwal,
are common to both FIRs. However, in the aforesaid FIR No. 26, these
RASHMI
2026.11.13 18:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-19539-2026
CRM-M-47505-2026
CRM-M-43925-2026 4
three accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by
a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide common order dated 31.08.2026,
passed in CRM-M-41602-2025 and other connected cases.
5. Now, adverting to the allegations qua the petitioners in the
present case, learned State counsel, on instructions from the Investigating
Officer, informs the Court that petitioners Rajat Sharma and Manoj are
alleged to have received commission for facilitating the arrangement of
bank accounts. However, no amount forming part of the alleged
defrauded sum was found to have been credited or transferred into their
respective bank accounts. Their alleged involvement is primarily based
upon the disclosure statements of the other co-accused. The prosecution
further submits that the main conspirators, along with the assistance of
the remaining accused, had orchestrated the fraud involving Rs.53.75
lakh and had got different bank accounts opened for the purpose of
receiving the defrauded amount.
6. As far as the role of petitioner Gurwinder Singh (petitioner
in CRM-M-47505-2026) is concerned, as per the prosecution case, an
amount of Rs.4.5 lakh was found to have been credited into his bank
account.
It is noticed that petitioner Rajat Sharma was arrested on
11.09.2025, petitioner Gurwinder Singh on 29.03.2026 and petitioner
Manoj on 22.05.2026.
The other material collected by the prosecution includes the
alleged factum of all the accused having stayed together at Hotel Future
RASHMI
2026.11.13 18:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-19539-2026
CRM-M-47505-2026
CRM-M-43925-2026 5
Inn, situated in Sector 11, Awana Market, Jhundpura, Sector 11, Noida,
during the relevant period.
7. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the
fact that no amount was found to have been credited, transferred or
deposited into the bank accounts of petitioners Rajat Sharma and Manoj,
and that their alleged involvement is primarily based upon the disclosure
statements of the co-accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that
their further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. The
allegation regarding their having stayed together at the aforesaid hotel is
a matter which would require proper proof by the prosecution during the
course of trial. At this stage, mere reliance upon such an allegation,
particularly in the absence of any direct financial trail connecting these
two petitioners with the alleged defrauded amount, would not justify their
continued incarceration.
Accordingly, both petitions, i.e. CRM-M-19539-2026 and
CRM-M-43925-2026, are allowed . Petitioners, namely, Rajat Sharma
and Manoj , are ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to their
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not requird in any other case.
8. However, as far as petitioner-Gurwinder Singh is concerned,
the prosecution has specifically attributed to him the receipt of an amount
of Rs.4.5 lakh in his bank account. The explanation sought to be
furnished on his behalf is that it was not he, but his co-accused Amrit,
who had got the bank account opened for the purpose of receiving the
RASHMI
2026.11.13 18:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-19539-2026
CRM-M-47505-2026
CRM-M-43925-2026 6
amount and that the petitioner was unaware of the alleged plan or
conspiracy hatched by the other accused.
Aforesaid explanation, at this stage, does not inspire the
confidence of this Court, particularly when a substantial amount forming
part of the alleged proceeds of cyber fraud is stated to have been credited
into the petitioner's bank account. The mere assertion that the petitioner
was unaware of the purpose for which his bank account was being
utilised cannot, by itself, absolve him of the allegations levelled against
him. The extent of his knowledge, participation and complicity in the
alleged conspiracy are matters which would require examination during
the course of trial.
9 This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that, with the advent
of online banking and digital modes of financial transactions, cyber
fraudsters have devised new methods to route and transfer the proceeds
of crime through different bank accounts. Persons facilitating the receipt
or transfer of such amounts, even by providing or arranging bank
accounts, cannot claim immunity merely on the ground that they were not
the ultimate beneficiaries of the entire fraudulent transaction. Role
attributed to petitioner-Gurwinder Singh, particularly the credit of Rs.4.5
lakh into his bank account, therefore, stands on a different footing from
that of the other two petitioners.
RASHMI
2026.11.13 18:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-19539-2026
CRM-M-47505-2026
CRM-M-43925-2026 7
10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, no ground for grant
of regular bail is made out in favour of petitioner-Gurwinder Singh.
Consequently, CRM-M-47505-2026 is dismissed .
11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 11, 2026
rashmi
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
RASHMI
2026.11.13 18:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document