SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 10 February, 2020

CRM-M No.52626 of 2019 1



CRM-M No.52626 of 2019
Date of Decision: 10.02.2020

Karan Singh

State of Haryana


Present:Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate
for the complainant.



Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439

Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.163 dated 01.03.2019 registered

under Sections 420, 506 IPC (Section 406 IPC added later on)

at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

An amount of Rs.26 lacs was deposited in favour of the

Registry of this Court. In CRM-M No.15444 of 2019, interim

anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner after deposit of

four demand drafts amounting to Rs.26 lacs in the registry of

1 of 5
11-02-2020 00:18:10 :::
CRM-M No.52626 of 2019 2

this Court. The said amount has been deposited in the official

account. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to record divergent

stand taken by the petitioner and the complainant viz-a-viz the

remaining amount of Rs.26 lacs. According to the petitioner, the

said amount was handed over to the complainant in the

presence of the witnesses, whereas the complainant has denied

the receipt of the said amount. Petitioner also filed additional

affidavit in the context of the alleged amount, wherein he had

taken a stand that a sum of Rs.26 lacs was paid. He further

relied upon another affidavit, where some loan transactions of

Rs.1,80,00,000/- was alleged against the petitioner.

Owing to the nature of controversy pending between

the parties, this Court, refrained from granting anticipatory bail

to the petitioner, however directed the police to carry out

thorough investigation and conclude the investigation, positively

within one month under the supervision of Superintendent of

Police from 01.10.2019 i.e. the date on which anticipatory bail

was rejected.

The allegations against the petitioner are that the

petitioner and Vikram Tyagi are friends. Vikram Tyagi is an

employee in Indian Railways. Petitioner borrowed an amount of

Rs.8 lacs from Vikram Tyagi and he could not repay the same.

In September, 2018, the petitioner assured Vikram Tyagi that he

2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 11-02-2020 00:18:11 :::
CRM-M No.52626 of 2019 3

would manage to pass the candidates in Indian Railways

examination by hacking the system. Railway Recruitment

Boards had Invited online applications from eligible candidates

for the recruitment of various posts in Level 1 st of 7th CPC Pay

Matrix in various units of Indian Railways vide centralized

employment notice (CEN) No.02/2018. Complainant Vishnu was

also appearing in the said examination. Vikram Tyagi is a

neighbour of Vishu (complainant) and he assured the

complainant that Karan would manage to get him passed in the

examination. Complainant and one Harbir sent the admit cards

to Vikram Tyagi through whatsapp who forwarded the same to

the petitioner. Petitioner used to prepare a video by using the

KineMaster Pro Video Editor app. He used to take the

photograph and roll number from the admit cards received by

him through whatsapp from Vikram Tyagi. One question was

also included in each video by Karan to make the candidates

believe that the system was actually hacked by him.

During interrogation, accused has revealed that

questions were copied by him by searching online on Google.

He had also seen the online mock tests link provided by RRBs

so as to include same screen in video to give impression to

candidates that the system was actually hacked by him. Vikram

Tyagi had played the role of middleman. He is the person who

3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 11-02-2020 00:18:11 :::
CRM-M No.52626 of 2019 4

contacted the complainant and Harbir and assured them that

the petitioner would manage to hack the system during the

examination and therefore, candidates appearing in examination

would be able to get success. The complainant and Harbir

further contacted other candidates. Further allegation is that an

amount of Rs.2 lacs per candidate was given to Karan through

Vikram Tyagi. The analysis of audio clips/video clips/CDRs

reveals that both were in regular touch in relevant period and

transaction had happened in this manner. No candidate could

get through the examination for which the petitioner had

assured Vikram Tyagi and took the money.

It is not in dispute that total amount collected by the

petitioner in collusion with Vikram Tyagi was Rs.52 lacs out of

which an amount of Rs.26 lacs was deposited by the petitioner

which is still lying in the Registry. Qua remaining amount of

Rs.26 lacs, there is an assertion that said amount has been paid

to the complainant party, however, the said fact has been

denied by learned counsel for the complainant.

In compliance of order dated 01.11.2019, challan has

already been presented. Petitioner is in custody since


Perusal of the challan would show that there is no

reference of remaining amount of Rs.26 lacs and the factum of

4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 11-02-2020 00:18:11 :::
CRM-M No.52626 of 2019 5

compromise between the parties has also not been commented

upon. Charges have been framed.

Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Bhushan

Kumar states that no prosecution witness has been examined

so far, out of total 34 witnesses.

Keeping in view the custody of the petitioner, filing of

the challan and framing of charges, I am of the view that at this

stage, without meaning anything on merits of the case, regular

bail of the petitioner can be considered. Petitioner is directed to

be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate

bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The

amount deposited by the petitioner shall remain deposited in the

Registry of this Court and the same shall be disbursed to the

trial Court only after conclusion of the trial for lawful payment to

successful party.

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to

be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.

10.02.2020 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 11-02-2020 00:18:11 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2023 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation