IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.11.2025 Mukhtesh Chhabra @ Muktesh Chhabra ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.63 dated 20.09.2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D), 75 of Information of Technology Act, 2000, Sections 3(5), 318(4), 319, 61 of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 42(3) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 at Police Station Cyber Crimine Police Station Kurukshetra.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by ASI Isham Singh (No. 23). He alleged that on 19.09.2025, while he was on duty at the police station, he received credible secret information that an illegal call centre was being operated on the first floor above Baker’s Lounge, near the Central Bank of India, Ladwa–Indri Road. It was further alleged that the said call centre was engaged in cheating and defrauding individuals both within India and abroad, and that if a raid was promptly conducted, the culprits could be apprehended in the act. Acting upon the said information, a raiding party was constituted, and a raid was carried out at the aforementioned premises. During the operation, eleven individuals were found actively engaged in fraudulent activities by communicating with foreign nationals through EyeBeam and Zoiper software. During questioning, one Rohit Malhotra disclosed that the call centre was run by Nikhil, a resident of Delhi, who had taken the premises on rent and employed the aforementioned boys to execute the fraudulent operation. Rohit further revealed that, as per the directions of Nikhil, they illicitly obtained personal and banking information from victims by impersonating authorities and falsely asserting that narcotics had been recovered from parcels addressed to them; such details were then misused for the commission of cyber fraud and illegal financial transactions. Based on these allegations, the present FIR was registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that from the bare perusal of the FIR reflects that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and the allegations therein are false, baseless and concocted. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged occurrence. No specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the name of the petitioner surfaced only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused –– Nikhil Sapra, which by itself is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be the sole ground for implication. According to learned counsel, there exists no evidence either in the form of financial transactions or call details to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the co-accused –– Nikhil Sapra. As per the disclosure statement of the co-accused, the only allegations against the petitioner is that he, being a local resident, merely assisted in locating the rented premises where the alleged call centre was set up. Moreover, the FIR does not allege any act of fraud, inducement or cheating by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

4. Per con