Punjab Chandigarh High Court · 2026

Ms. Chhavi Sharma, Astt. AG, Haryana Ms. Haryana.. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed The filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case case bearing FIR No.113 dated

20.12.2024 registered under Sections 319, 318(4), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340, 61 of the the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sonipat. Station Cyber Crime, District Sonipat.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present Briefly present case are that the FIR came to be registered registered on the complaint of Monu (hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”), who who alleged that on 25.09.2024 he received a WhatsApp call offering free training training in share market trading. trading. The caller claimed to be associated with a multinational company and represented represented that daily online classes would be be conducted at 8:00 p.m. for one one hour. Shortly thereafter, the complainant received received another WhatsApp call and and was added to two groups, namely “Unity Fusion Fusion 150” and “Trade Star Dynamic Dynamic Company”, where the said training sessions sessions commenced. It was further further stated that after a few days, the complainant complainant was induced to invest money money in the share market on the assurance of earning earning profits ranging between 20% to 30% within a short span of time and and in some instances, on the promise promise of doubling the invested amount. Acting Acting on such representations, the complainant complainant claims to have SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.22 20:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fallen prey to the scheme and transferred a total sum of Rs.5,09,000/- 212 CRM-M-69660-2025 (O&M) 2 through multiple transactions. The specific allegation against the petitioner, Parveen, is that he collected the cheque book and ATM card pertaining to a bank account maintained with Bandhan Bank and permitted the same to be used for deriving unlawful financial benefit in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the FIR in the present case had been registered on the complaint given by complainant-Monu to the effect that he had been allured by certain unknown persons to make investment under the pretext of doubling money, whereupon an amount of Rs.5,09,000/- was transferred by him into the said account. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered and two persons namely Sudama and Devender were initially arrested. It is further contended that during the course of investigation, disclosure statement of Devender was recorded, wherein he nominated one Chander Kant as an accused. Thereafter, a disclosure statement of Chander Kant was recorded on 21.01.2025, in which he nominated Karambir who further nominated Pardeep. It is argued that the name of the present petitioner cropped up in the disclosure of the Pardeep recorded on 14.02.2025.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the name of the petitioner has cropped up at a belated stage in the investigation and that, even in the disclosure statement wherein his name has been mentioned, no specific role or overt act has been attributed to the petitioner so as to establish his participation in the commission of the offence.

5. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, contends that as per the disclosure statements made, the petitioner was in possession of the cheque book and ATM card of the bank account maintained in the name of Karambir. It is thus evident that the cyber fraud racket was not being operated without the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.22 20:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 212 CRM-M-69660-2025 (O&M) 3 knowledge of the petitioner, and that he was not only acting in active collusion with the other accused but was also a beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime. It is further submitted that offences relating to cyber fraud are typically executed through multiple interconnected cells, each operating within a defined sphere, yet forming part of a larger and organised criminal network. In such cases, the role of an individual accused cannot be examined in isolation or confined merely to a single overt act attributed to him. Given the well- orchestrated nature of the alleged offence, learned State counsel submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary so as to unearth the entire conspiracy and to ascertain the extent of the fraud, including the number of persons who may have been duped in a similar manner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition.

7. A pointed query was posed to the counsel for the petitioner as to how and under what circumstances, he came to be in possession of the bank account opened in the name of Karambir, along with the documents enabling withdrawal of funds, including the cheque book and ATM card, however, he is not in a position to offer a satisfactory explanation to this Court. Evasive response is offered on behalf of the petitioner. It is thus apparent from the totality of the circumstances that the petitioner was not only aware of the manner in which the transactions were being carried out, but was also a beneficiary of the proceeds of the said transactions. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be permitted to feign ignorance of the fraudulent activities undertaken through the said bank account.

8. Needless to mention that offences relating to cyber crime are ordinarily executed through multiple layers, each performing a distinct yet interconnected function. While any individual layer may appear to undertake SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.22 20:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 212 CRM-M-69660-2025 (O&M) 4 only a limited role, the commission of the offence, as a whole, would not be possible in the absence of such participation. In the present case, however, the material on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not merely a peripheral actor but a direct beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions. This aspect stands corroborated by the fact that the bank account into which the defrauded amount was transferred was being operated by the petitioner himself and that he was in possession of the cheque book, passbook as well as the ATM card pertaining to the said account. The offence, on the face of it, appears to be well-orchestrated and premeditated. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.

10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

15.01.2026 Sumit Gusain (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.22 20:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document