Punjab & Haryana High Court
Whereas refusing to grant anticipatory bail to an accused in a case of cyber monetary fraud, the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has noticed that erosion of public confidence in digital monetary transaction platforms as a result of proliferation of on-line frauds and cybercrimes runs counter to the aspirations of a sophisticated and digitally empowered “Digital Bharat”.
The Petition earlier than the Excessive Courtroom was filed below Part 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered below Sections 318(4) of BNS.
The Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel stated, “The proliferation of on-line frauds and cybercrimes poses a big menace, because it systematically erodes public confidence in digital monetary transaction platforms. Such erosion runs counter to the aspirations of a sophisticated and digitally empowered “Digital Bharat” and thus warrants a heightened diploma of judicial circumspection. These offences are characterised by their capability to aggrieve a large number of victims concurrently, typically with a single act of fee. The deleterious penalties of cybercrimes transcend particular person boundaries, imperiling quite a few unsuspecting residents. The gravity of such transgressions can’t, due to this fact, be understated.”
Advocate G.S. Thind represented the Petitioner whereas AAGG Gurmeet Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The complainant filed a written grievance regarding fraudulent withdrawals from his joint checking account maintained together with his spouse. He alleged that on August 31, 2024, the complainant acquired calls purportedly from a financial institution official, requesting cost of mortgage curiosity. The complainant knowledgeable the caller that he had already made advance funds towards the mortgage, and as such, no curiosity was due. The caller thereafter alleged that the quantity had already been withdrawn from the mortgage account, thus prompting the complainant to go to the department.
Upon examination of the account assertion on the financial institution, the complainant found unauthorized debit transactions amounting to ₹25,00,000. It was additional alleged by the complainant that particularly, three transactions of ₹5,00,000 every and two further transactions of ₹5,00,000 every have been recorded on August 10, 2024. These withdrawals have been carried out with out his data or consent. The complainant suspected that the quantity was fraudulently withdrawn by unidentified people. On these allegations, an FIR was filed below Part 318(4) of the BNS, 2023.
Reasoning
The Bench famous that within the FIR in query, severe allegations have been levelled towards the petitioner, and it emerged from the document that the petitioner, in connivance with the co-accused, was alleged to have been concerned within the fee of cyber monetary fraud towards the complainant. It was the stand of the State that the petitioner facilitated the fraudulent exercise by allowing the usage of his checking account.
It was additional observed that throughout the investigation, a sum of ₹10,00,000 was transferred into the checking account of the petitioner-accused. “This truth, coupled with different circumstances detailed within the investigation, factors in the direction of the lively complicity of the petitioner within the alleged offence. The police have additional asserted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for the aim of successfully unravelling the modus operandi of the accused individuals, figuring out the broader nexus concerned within the fraud, and recovering the siphoned quantity”, the Bench talked about.
“The nature and gravity of the offence, involving organized cybercrime and monetary deceit, necessitate an intensive investigation, which, at this stage, can’t be performed with out the petitioner being in custody”, it stated whereas additionally including, “It’s befitting to point out right here that whereas adjudicating the bail pleas, significantly in circumstances regarding cybercrimes and on-line fraud, necessitates a meticulous analysis of a number of pivotal elements. Paramount amongst these is the inherent gravity and seriousness of the offense, coupled with its potential societal ramifications.”
In mild of the inherent nature and profound gravity of such offences, and their wide-ranging cascading results on each society and monetary establishments, the Courtroom was disinclined to grant the reduction of anticipatory bail as prayed for. “To do in any other case can be to show a Nelson’s eye to the profound and far-reaching detrimental impression of those digital depredations”, it said.
Thus, discovering an affordable foundation for the accusations, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Trigger Title: Suhail v. State of Haryana (Impartial Quotation: 2025:PHHC:078633)
Look
Petitioner: Advocate G.S. Thind
Respondent: AAGG Gurmeet Singh
