Hemant Kumar Meena vs State Of Haryana

Hemant Kumar Meena ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Akshay Laller, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG, Haryana

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

CRM-44453-2025

Allowed as prayed for.

Main case

This is the first petition under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 15 dated 13.03.2024, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Panchkula.

Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Panchkula on the basis of the statement of complainant Gagan Anand alleging commission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. As per the case of the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR. It is alleged that the prosecution has linked the

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:30:58 :::

CRM-M-62501-2025 (O&M) 2

occurrence with a Wi-Fi connection allegedly used in the commission of the offence, however, there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. The petitioner has no relationship or dealings with the complainant and has been implicated merely on the basis of the internet connection, which is accessible to multiple users.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced only in the disclosure statement of co-accused Jai Prakash, which by itself has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is further argued that there is no direct or indirect evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offences and no amount from the alleged fraud has been credited into any bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner is neither an employee of the Bank nor of the telecom company allegedly involved in the fraud and, therefore, the ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are not made out against him. Learned counsel further submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is not required as he is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency. It is also argued that the co-accused, including Vandana Pokharel, Latuer Singh Meena, Jai Prakash, Vikas Kumar Meena, Bharat Pareek and Sunil Sharma, have already been granted the concession of bail by the competent courts and the case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing, thus entitling him to the

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:30:59 :::

CRM-M-62501-2025 (O&M) 3

benefit of parity. It is further submitted that except for the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there is no material connecting the petitioner with the alleged occurrence and such disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and shall not misuse the concession of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition

and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and involve a well-planned cyber fraud causing wrongful loss to the complainant to the tune of about ₹73 lakhs. It is contended that during investigation it was revealed that the fraud amount was transferred from the complainant's account into the bank account of co-accused Latuer Singh Meena and thereafter, routed through various accounts opened and operated by the accused persons. It is further submitted that during investigation various documents including CDR details, bank statements and IP logs were collected and examined. Co- accused persons namely Lateur Singh Meena, Sunil Sharma, Bharat Pareek, Jai Prakash and Vikas Kumar Meena were joined in the investigation and their disclosure statements were recorded. As per the disclosure statement of co-accused Jai Prakash and others, the present petitioner-Hemant Kumar Meena along with other accused persons had dishonestly opened bank accounts, arranged bank kits and facilitated the deposit and withdrawal of the cheated amount. It is further submitted that the petitioner played an active role in operating

3 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:30:59 :::

CRM-M-62501-2025 (O&M) 4

the accounts and depositing the fraud amount after alluring account holders with commission. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation in the present case is still at a crucial stage and certain recoveries including bank kits and other material are yet to be effected from the petitioner. It is also argued that the petitioner is technically well-versed and there is every possibility that he may tamper with electronic evidence or influence witnesses if granted the concession of anticipatory bail. It is further contended that the petitioner has earlier approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula for grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2025 after considering the prima facie evidence against him. It is also submitted that two other FIRs have been registered against the petitioner i.e FIR No.5/2020 under Sections 384, 354(D), 509, 34 IPC and Section 67 IT, Act at Police Station Surajpol, District Udaipur, Rajasthan and FIR No.2 dated 01.08.2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D), 55 D of the IT Act, at Police Station Cyber, Sonipat.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going

through the record, this Court is of the considered view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The allegations in the present case pertain to a serious cyber fraud involving a substantial amount of about ₹73 lakhs. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the petitioner was actively involved in the conspiracy whereby bank accounts were arranged and used for depositing and routing the fraud amount. The disclosure

4 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:30:59 :::

CRM-M-62501-2025 (O&M) 5

statements of co-accused persons reveal that the petitioner along with other accused persons had dishonestly opened and operated bank accounts and utilized ATM cards, cheque books and bank kits for transferring the cheated amount. The investigation further indicates that certain bank kits and other incriminating material are yet to be recovered from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation appears necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy and trace the flow of the defrauded money. The plea of parity raised by the petitioner also does not advance his case as the role attributed to the present petitioner is distinguishable from that of other co-accused who have been granted bail. The material on record suggests that the petitioner had a more active and direct role in managing the accounts used for depositing the fraud amount and facilitating the illegal transactions, whereas the other accused who have been granted bail were assigned comparatively limited roles. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioner and the requirement of custodial interrogation for effective investigation, this Court finds no ground to extend the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition seeking anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are

also disposed of.

09.03.2026 (MANDEEP PANNU)

rekha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

5 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2026 01:30:59 :::