Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
Mohd. Ajitullah @ Ajit Ullah – Appellant
Versus
State of UT Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M Nos. 62626, 65430, 65545, 66701, 69854, 71862 of 2025, CRM-M No. 2273 of 2026
Decided On : 08-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Amit Kumar, Mahesh Sharma, Vishal Malik, Aditya Sanghi, Simranjit Singh, Prince Srangal, Bharat Bhandari
For the Respondents: Manish Bansal, Dixit Bhardwaj, Arjun Garg, Sarasmi Budhiraja
For the Complainant : Ashit Malik, Mohit Kaushik

In cases of organized cyber fraud involving digital arrest and the forgery of judicial documents, the court must prioritize the gravity of the offense, the risk of flight, and the potential for witness tampering over the duration of custody, especially when the investigation is ongoing and the mastermind remains at large.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 308, 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(02), 249 - Regular bail - Cyber fraud - Digital arrest - Gravity of offense - Organized crime - Risk of flight - Tampering with evidence.

(B) Bail - Principles for grant - Where the offense involves a sophisticated and organized cyber fraud, including the impersonation of high-ranking judicial and law enforcement officials, and the victim is subjected to prolonged psychological coercion, the court must consider the societal impact and the risk of the accused absconding or influencing witnesses. (Paras 13, 16, 18)

(C) Bail - Discretionary power - The court is not bound to grant bail merely because of the duration of custody if the investigation is ongoing, the mastermind is at large, and the nature of the crime poses a significant threat to public trust and the rule of law. (Paras 14, 15, 18)

Facts of the case:
Several petitioners sought regular bail in a case involving a large-scale cyber fraud where the victim was placed under digital arrest for nearly a month. The accused impersonated various government and judicial authorities to extort money, resulting in the loss of the victim's entire life savings. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the organized nature of the syndicate, the risk of the accused fleeing, and the potential for tampering with evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the offense was not a simple case of cheating but a sophisticated criminal enterprise involving the forgery of judicial documents and the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. The financial trail and the roles of the petitioners in the money laundering chain were established during the investigation.

Issues: Whether the petitioners, who were part of an organized syndicate involved in a high-stakes cyber fraud, should be granted regular bail despite the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gravity of the offense, the organized nature of the crime, the potential for the accused to abscond, and the risk of influencing witnesses outweigh the period of custody already served. The court emphasized that such crimes strike at the foundation of public trust and require a stern judicial approach.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual basis, fir details, and specific criminal roles attributed to the accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. parties' contentions regarding custody duration and gravity of the offense vs. bail necessity. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. analysis of the 'digital arrest' phenomenon and reliance on precedents involving large-scale cyber fraud. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. conclusion denying bail due to the gravity of organized cybercrime and risk of interfering with investigation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The present petitions arise out of the same FIR, thus are being decided together by a common order.

2. The prayer made in all the petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.64 dated 01.06.2025, registered under Sections 308 , 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(02), 249 , at Police Station Cyber Crime, UT Chandigarh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Mohd. Ajitullah and Jubbar Ali submit that they have been in custody for 9 months and 24 days each, and that they hail from Assam, the former had come to Lucknow for carpentry work, while the latter, for the purpose of a transport, he being a truck driver.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Chitransh submits that he is in custody for 9 months and 24 days. No recovery has been effected from him, as his name had surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Prince, to be the one who helped co-accused Manish Jaiswal in opening a bank account. However he has no concern with the said co-accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Prince submits that he works in the private sector in a company named CashGrow and has been in custody for 9 months and 24 days. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused Jubbar Ali, however nothing has been recovered from him.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Abhijeet submits that the petitioner was arrested from his house, hereafter his custody is 9 months and 24 days. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Prashant. No recovery has been effected from him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Vikrant submits that his name surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-accused Prashant and he has been in custody for 9 months and 12 days.

8. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Prashant submits that no recovery has been effected from him, whereas he has been in custody for 9 months and 17 days and that his mobile number is being misused, due to which he has been roped in this case.

9. Learned counsel for the UT Chandigarh, on instructions from SI Yashpal Singh, as also learned Senior counsel for the complainant oppose the present petitions with vehemence by stating that all the petitioners in connivance with each other have defrauded the complainant of a huge amount of Rs.2.5 Crores, who is aged about 70 years and retired as Chief Architect, Chandigarh, it being the entire earning of her lifetime including the retiral benefits and savings. She was placed under digital arrest by the fraudsters from 03.05.2025 to 30.05.2025, during which period she was prohibited from disclosing anything to her brother and niece, with whom she is living and produced through video call before the Chief Justice of India, who was stated to be monitoring a case being investigated by CBI and her funds needed to be placed in secret supervision account. All these petitioners, except Vikrant and Abhijeet, were apprehended from the same room in a Hotel in Lucknow. Charges are yet to be framed. The victim apprehends grave danger at the hands of the petitioners in case they are released on bail, especially when many other accused are still absconding, whose details have not been disclosed. There is every apprehension of the petitioners, who belong to different States, fleeing from justice being a flight risk, tampering with evidence and/or influencing the witnesses, as also indu