Shovan Saha vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Shovan Saha, is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 21 dated 01.08.2024, registered under Sections 318, 319, 61 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 66-C, 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by Harish Gupta, who alleged that his employee, Seema, transferred Rs. 49,60,401/- from the company account to Babu Sheikh's IndusInd Bank account after receiving a fraudulent WhatsApp message impersonating the complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 02.08.2024. His initial bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 11.12.2024. A previous petition filed by the petitioner in this Court (CRM-M-35284-2025) was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.07.2025. The petitioner has been incarcerated for over 1 year and 9 months.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Abhishek Kumar Singh, who had previously been granted bail by this Court. The Court noted that the petitioner has been in custody for 01 year, 09 months, and 01 day as of 11.05.2026 and is not involved in any other case. The Court also acknowledged that the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time, with 11 out of 23 prosecution witnesses examined. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed during the trial. The ratio decidendi is that when a co-accused with a similar case has been granted bail, and the trial is protracted, bail should be granted on grounds of parity. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court explicitly stated that nothing said in the order should be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused, specifically Abhishek Kumar Singh, who was granted bail by this Court (Issue of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of bail and evidence appreciation). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner's case is at par with that of co-accused Abhishek Kumar Singh, who was granted regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-58351-2025 on 19.03.2026. Therefore, on the principle of parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. The petitioner has also been in custody for over 1.5 years. Respondent's Arguments: The State counsel opposed the bail application but endorsed the fact that the petitioner's case is indeed at par with co-accused Abhishek Kumar Singh. The State also informed that the challan has been filed, charges have been framed, and out of 23 prosecution witnesses, 11 have been examined.