The court emphasized that bail should not be granted in cases of serious cyber fraud due to potential systemic damage and the habitual nature of the offender's crimes.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0010 dated 07.02.2024, registered under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’), at Cyber Police Station, Rohtak.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant, namely, Rajpal Yadav, son of Banwari Lal, reported that he has been a victim of cyber fraud. He stated that on 26.12.2023, he received an invitation on his WhatsApp number 9416243051 to join a group named “Sinha Wealth Institute M 100.” The group had been created earlier on 02.11.2023 from WhatsApp number 6282249237142. The invitation was sent by Nisha Gupta, using mobile number 8105907215, who was also the group admin. She frequently changed her mobile numbers, using 8735879620, 6033409938, and 8658444010 at different times, and is currently interacting with him through 8735879620. Other group admins included Dhananjay Sinha (mobile number 6033381072), another admin using number 6033406945, and Mr. Jimeet Modi (mobile number 9719653414). According to the complainant, Nisha Gupta was the main administrator and communicated with him regularly on WhatsApp. She promised him high profits by investing in Indian share markets, shares, and IPOs. She instructed him to download an application called “Wells Pro App” and join a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) account. She enrolled him in the FII account under ID: 314919 and persuaded him to start investing money beginning 07.01.2024.

Acting on her instructions, the complainant transferred money to various accounts between 09.01.2024 and 23.01.2024, totaling Rs.17.50 lakhs, from his bank account (Account No.4206172000000114, Karur Vysya Bank, Rohtak). He further alleged that the accused had also transferred Rs.1,000 into his account on 11.01.2024, which appeared to him as a credibility gesture, leading him to trust them and invest further. On 01.02.2024, the accused persons allegedly showed him a fictitious profit of Rs.42 lakhs, reflecting a total balance of Rs.62 lakhs in his FII account, inclusive of his investment. When the complainant sought withdrawal of Rs.40 lakhs for personal needs, the accused demanded an additional Rs.8,20,000 as “Income Tax,” refusing to process any withdrawal until such amount was paid. The complainant further stated that he had been cheated and the individuals involved were cyber scammers who had fraudulently taken Rs.17.50 lakhs from him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that sole basis for implication of the petitioner in this case is the disclosure statement of the petitioner and co-accused, which is not admissible in law. Learned counsel has iterated that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and the account in question already stands frozen. Learned counsel has further iterated that there is no substantial as well as corroborative evidence available with the prosecution to show complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Learned counsel has further urged that no useful purpose would likely be served by continuing the incarceration of the petitioner further. Thus, it has been entreated that the petition in hand be granted.

4. Learned State counsel has pointed towards the compliance report by way of an affidavit dated 25.08.2025 (already on record), relevant whereof reads thus:

“7. That the production warrants were issued for the above