Prabal Madan vs. State Of Haryana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Prabal Madan, was arrested on June 18, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 118 dated April 29, 2026, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and other related sections, including Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The FIR was based on a complaint of cyber fraud where the complainant was induced to transfer ₹1,45,099 to various bank accounts after being told he had won a lottery. The petitioner's alleged involvement stemmed from a co-accused's disclosure that the petitioner possessed the co-accused's bank cheque book and ATM card. No incriminating articles were recovered from the petitioner's possession. Several co-accused, including the principal beneficiary, had already been granted regular bail.
Held
The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court noted that several co-accused, including those alleged to have played more substantial roles and the principal beneficiary, had already been granted bail, and the State had not pointed out any distinguishing circumstances for the petitioner. The Court also acknowledged the admitted position that the complainant had amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and the alleged monetary loss had been made good, considering this a relevant circumstance for bail, especially as the investigation concerning the petitioner was substantially concluded. The Court found that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since June 18, 2026, and further custodial detention was not necessary for investigation. Given that the trial was not likely to conclude soon, continued incarceration was deemed to serve no useful purpose and would amount to an unwarranted curtailment of personal liberty. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds and adhering to specific conditions, including not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, not leaving India without permission, providing residential and financial details, and not committing similar offenses.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail pending trial, considering his alleged involvement is based solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement and no incriminating articles were recovered from his possession, particularly when other co-accused with more substantial roles have been granted bail? (Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he is falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and his implication relies only on a co-accused's statement, which is not substantive evidence. No incriminating articles or overt acts are attributed to him. He claims parity with co-accused who have been granted bail, including the principal beneficiary. He also states the complainant has settled the dispute and recovered the alleged loss, and his continued custody is unwarranted as investigation is substantially concluded. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State vehemently opposes bail, arguing the case involves a well-organized cyber fraud syndicate with serious economic offenses having wide-ranging ramifications. They contend that the petitioner's involvement was disclosed during investigation, and the disclosure statements, along with electronic and digital evidence, require examination during trial. They argue that the nature and gravity of the allegations do not warrant bail at this stage.
Sections Cited
Section 483, Section 318(4), Section 61(2), Section 241, Section 66-D, Article 21
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CRM-M-41906-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (221)
CRM-M-41906-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision:04.08.2026 PRABAL MADAN … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Naresh Kumar Khepar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Asstt. AG, Haryana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL
, J . (Oral)
The present petition has been instituted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking the concession of regular bail pending trial in connection with FIR No. 118 dated 29.04.2026, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (with Sections 61(2) and 241 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 added subsequently), at Police Station Cyber Crime, Manesar, District Gurugram, Haryana.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that an online complaint bearing No. 1280-MHA dated 17.03.2026 was received alleging commission of cyber fraud. During the course of investigation, the GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.05 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-41906-2026 (O&M) complainant stated that on 15.03.2026 he came across a lottery advertisement on Facebook and, upon clicking the same, received a call informing him that he had won a lottery of 10,00,000/-. On the ₹ inducement of the callers, who represented that registration charges and GST were required to be deposited for release of the prize money, the complainant transferred an aggregate amount of 1,45,099/- ₹ into different bank accounts. Subsequently, when further demands for money were raised, the complainant realised that he had been deceived and approached the police, leading to the registration of the present FIR.
During investigation, it surfaced that an amount of 51,300/- ₹ had been credited into the account of Ganpati Traders. Acting upon technical surveillance and location details, the investigating agency conducted a raid on 29.05.2026, during which six accused persons, namely Mohammed Shoyab, Nishant, Harsh, Arjun Kumar, Tanuj and Samarjeet, were apprehended while allegedly operating a fake call centre. Various electronic devices, including mobile phones, laptops, SIM cards, cheque books, ATM cards and card swipe machines, were recovered from their possession. During interrogation, accused Nishant allegedly disclosed that his Yes Bank cheque book and ATM card were in the possession of the present petitioner. Investigation thereafter continued and the petitioner came to be arrested on 18.06.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and is not named in the FIR. It is submitted that his implication rests solely upon the disclosure statement of a co- accused, which, by itself, does not constitute substantive evidence. It is GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.05 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-41906-2026 (O&M) further argued that no incriminating article, electronic device, document or bank instrument has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, nor has any specific overt act been attributed to him.
Learned counsel further submits that all the principal accused, namely Mohammed Shoyab, Nishant, Samarjeet, Tanuj, Harsh and Arjun Kumar, who were apprehended from the fake call centre and from whose possession substantial electronic devices and other incriminating articles were recovered, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, vide orders dated 09.06.2026 and 10.06.2026. It is further submitted that even the principal beneficiary, namely Kailash Sharma, in whose bank account a substantial part of the defrauded amount was allegedly credited, has also been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 04.07.2026. The petitioner, therefore, claims parity with the aforesaid co-accused.
It is further contended that the petitioner is neither the account holder into whose account the cheated amount was credited nor is there any allegation that he induced the complainant, operated the fake call centre, forged any document or directly participated in the alleged cyber fraud. The entire investigation is documentary and electronic in nature, all recoveries have already been effected, and no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
Learned counsel also submits that the complainant has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and the alleged monetary loss has already been made good. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 18.06.2026, the investigation qua him stands substantially GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.05 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-41906-2026 (O&M) concluded, and the trial is likely to consume considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion. Continued incarceration would, therefore, serve no useful purpose and would amount to an unwarranted curtailment of the petitioner's personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present petition be allowed.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- State. The custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail. It is contended that the allegations pertain to a well-organised cyber fraud syndicate operating through a fake call centre, whereby unsuspecting members of the public were dishonestly induced to part with their hard-earned money on the false promise of lottery winnings. The offences alleged are serious in nature, involve economic offences committed through digital platforms and have wide- ranging ramifications affecting public confidence in electronic transactions.
It is further submitted that the investigation has disclosed the involvement of several accused acting in concert as part of a larger criminal conspiracy, and the precise role of each participant is yet to be fully unearthed. The petitioner has been nominated during the course of investigation on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency, GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.05 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-41906-2026 (O&M) and the disclosure statements as well as the electronic and digital evidence collected during investigation are required to be examined in their entirety during trial. It is, therefore, contended that, considering the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations, as well as the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have meticulously perused the paper book and the material placed on record with their able assistance.
It is not in dispute that the co-accused, namely Mohammed Shoyab, Nishant, Samarjeet, Tanuj, Harsh, Arjun Kumar and Kailash Sharma, who are stated to have played a more substantial role in the alleged occurrence, have already been enlarged on regular bail by the learned Courts below. The petitioner, therefore, claims parity with the aforesaid co-accused, and no distinguishing circumstance has been pointed out by the learned State counsel so as to disentitle him from claiming similar relief.
It is further an admitted position that the complainant has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner and the alleged monetary loss suffered by him has already been made good. Although such compromise, by itself, may not be determinative of the issue of bail in offences of the present nature, it nevertheless constitutes a relevant circumstance while considering the prayer for grant of regular bail, GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.05 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-41906-2026 (O&M) particularly when the investigation qua the petitioner stands substantially concluded.
The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 18.06.2026. There is nothing on record to suggest that his further custodial detention is necessary for the purposes of investigation. Furthermore, the trial is not likely to attain finality in the near future and is expected to consume considerable time before reaching its logical conclusion. Continued incarceration of the petitioner, in such circumstances, would not advance the cause of justice and would result in an unwarranted curtailment of his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No useful purpose would, therefore, be served by prolonging his detention pending trial.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it prejudice either party during the course of trial, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for the grant of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, and further subject to the following conditions:- i. The petitioner(s) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the Investigating Agency. GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.05 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-41906-2026 (O&M) ii. The petitioner(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever, nor shall the petitioner(s), directly or indirectly, attempt to influence, intimidate, or contact any prosecution witness. iii. The petitioner(s) shall not leave the territorial limits of India without obtaining the prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event any of the petitioner(s) is in possession of a passport, the particulars thereof shall be furnished before the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court. iv. Before accepting the bail and surety bonds, the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/C.J.M. concerned shall obtain from the petitioner(s) the permanent residential address as well as the present correspondence address, duly supported by appropriate documentary proof. The Investigating Officer shall verify the correctness of the said addresses within 48 hours of the acceptance of the bail bonds and place a verification report on record. In the event any of the addresses is found to be false, fictitious, or incorrect, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. v. The petitioner(s) shall furnish before the learned Trial Court, either at the time of furnishing the bail bonds or within such period as may be specified by the Court, the Permanent Account Number (PAN), Aadhaar Number, particulars of all operative bank accounts, and a declaration disclosing details of immovable properties, if any. Any concealment of material particulars or furnishing of false information shall constitute a valid ground for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail in accordance with law. GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.05 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-41906-2026 (O&M) vi. The petitioner(s) shall intimate the Investigating Officer as well as the learned Trial Court, in writing, of any change in residential address or mobile number within seven days of such change. vii. The petitioner(s) shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial and shall remain present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless personal appearance is exempted in accordance with law. The petitioner(s) shall not absent from the proceedings without obtaining prior permission of the learned Trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions or unauthorized absence from the trial proceedings, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, including cancellation of the concession of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process, including warrants of arrest.
In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 04.08.2026
JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.08.05 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.