IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dafda Jignesh Jethabhai ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 20.03.2026 Date of Uploading : 20.03.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Akash Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present second petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.04 dated 26.04.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Pathankot.

2. The petitioner had earlier applied for grant of regular bail before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.02.2026. The relevant part of said order reads as under:-

“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, seeks to withdraw the petition in hand at this stage.

3. Ordered accordingly.”

3. The prosecution case, as emanating from the record, is that the instant FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by one Ramesh Bhavri, who alleged that he and his wife were duped of a substantial amount ₹

of 54,26,665/- by unknown persons through a well-orchestrated cyber fraud. It has been alleged that the wife of the complainant had received a call from a person impersonating himself as ‘Vijay Khanna’ from the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai. As per the complainant, the caller falsely informed them that a bank account had been opened in the name of the complainant in Canara Bank, Mahim Branch, Mumbai for money laundering and an arrest warrant had been issued. Furthermore, the impersonator had sent a forged arrest warrant of the Supreme Court of India on WhatsApp and threatened a “digital arrest” unless funds were transferred for verification. Acting under fear and coercion, the complainant transferred the huge amount of money into the multiple bank accounts provided by the fraudsters. On these set of allegations, the instant FIR was lodged against the unknown person for committing online fraud. During the course of preliminary inquiry and subsequent investigation, it had revealed that the fraud had been executed through telephonic and digital means involving multiple bank accounts. During the course of further investigation, the name of the present petitioner had surfaced on the basis of the banking trail which indicated that a substantial portion of the defrauded amount had been credited into the bank account maintained in the name of M/s Bharat Electronics and Enterprises allegedly jointly operated by the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 24.06.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as his name does not figure in the same. Learned counsel has further iterated that the entire case against the petitioner is based upon disclosure statements of co- accused persons, which are inadmissible in evidence. It has been further argued that neither any recovery has been effected from the petitioner nor there is any electronic or digital evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. Furthermore, the petitioner has neither made any call to the complainant nor participated in the alleged fraudulent transactions. According to learned counsel, the implication of the petitioner is solely based on account of the alleged misuse of his identity documents by the co- accused. It has been further contended that the investigation stands completed; challan has been presented and 02 material witnesses i.e. the complainant and his wife, have already been examined before the Court below who have not attributed any role to the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 24.06.2025 and has undergone incarceration for a substantial period of