1. Petition for anticipatory bail in cyber fraud FIR alleging call-center cheating of foreign nationals. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 22898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manisha Batra, J
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-65383-2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Omkar Chauhan
For the Respondents: Apporv Garg
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Omkar Chauhan
For the Respondents: Apporv Garg
Anticipatory bail may be denied where the custodial interrogation of the accused is essential for the recovery of crime proceeds (gold and property documents) and to unravel the operations of a cyber-crime syndicate, especially given the sophisticated nature of digital frauds.
Headnote:(A) Anticipatory Bail - Custodial Interrogation - Recovery of crime proceeds - Where the disclosure statement of a co-accused indicates that assets derived from a cyber-crime syndicate (gold jewellery and property documents) are in the possession of the petitioner, custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the proceeds of crime and uncover the modus operandi. (Para 7)
(B) Cyber Crime - Digital Fraud - Nature of offence - Crimes involving fake call centers and defrauding foreign nationals through sophisticated digital methods are growing menaces requiring a stringent approach for deterrence. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail despite the requirement for custodial interrogation to recover crime proceeds.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued false implication and no recovery; State argued custodial interrogation needed for recovering crime proceeds. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Petitioner, as father-in-law of co-accused, is prima facie part of call-center cheating gang; custodial interrogation required. (Para 7 )
4. Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not granted where custodial interrogation is required to recover crime proceeds. (Para 7 )
5. Dismissed petition for anticipatory bail; observations not to influence trial. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
6. When is custodial interrogation required to deny anticipatory bail in a cyber fraud case?
Custodial interrogation is required when it is necessary to elicit information about the whereabouts of crime proceeds and the manner of commission of the crime. (Para 7 )
7. Is pre-arrest bail an ordinary remedy or an extraordinary remedy?
Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, not as a matter of course. (Para 7 )
8. Can a disclosure statement of a co-accused be used to deny anticipatory bail to a third party?
Yes, a disclosure statement naming a petitioner can circumstantially implicate them as part of a criminal gang, supporting denial of anticipatory bail. (Para 7 )
****
MANISHA BATRA, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.100, dated 21.08.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 75 , 66, 66-C, 66-D of IT Act and Section 42(3) of Telecommunications Act, 2023 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Panchkula, District Panchkula.
2. The adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that on the evening of 20th/21st August, 2025, a secret information was received at Police Station Cyber Crime, Panchkula that some fake call centers were being operated in Twin Tower of IT Park, Sector 22, Panchkula and the operators of those call centers had been cheating persons living abroad and were extracting money from them. Believing the secret information to be true, 03 raiding parties were formed. Search warrants were got issued. One of the raiding parties conducted raid at call centre named as Certys IT Services and found 28 boys and girls while conversing with foreign nationals with the help of Eyebeam and X-Lite Dialer apps and duping them of their money. They alongwith accused-Mahesh Chandra Shekhar Shetty, operator/owner of the call center were apprehended and disclosed their names and particulars. Accused-Mahesh Chandra Shekhar Shetty disclosed that he had taken those premises on rent under the garb of providing customer services to foreign nationals and had been defrauding them with the help of different softwares. He had formed different teams and some of them used to extract details by showing themselves as bank officials. He also disclosed that he was receiving the defrauded money by way of bitcoin or hawala transactions. Several laptops, earphones, mobile phones, chargers and cash amounting to Rs.8,20,000/- were recovered from the call center and taken into custody by the Police. A special investigation team was constituted to investigate the case.
3. As per the further allegations, accused-Mahesh Chandra Shekhar Shetty suffered disclosure statement on the basis of which, the accused Narender Kumar alias Munder was nominated as accused. He was arrested on 28.10.2025 and suffered disclosure statement to the effect that after the arrest of accused Krishan Lal, his uncle, the accused Rishab and Narender Kumar alias Munder had handed over a bag containing gold jewellery and property documents to him and that the said bag was further handed over by him to his father-in-law Vinod Kumar i.e. the present petitioner. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. Investigation is still underway. Apprehending his arrest, he moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 14.11.2025.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He does not have any criminal antecedents. His son-in-law Narender Kumar and son Vaibhav Swamy were illegally detained by Police on 28.10.2025. His son was subsequently released. His house has already been searched and nothing has been recovered. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. Disclosure statement of the co-accused is not admissible in evidence qua him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Status report has been filed. It is argued by learned State counsel that the petitioner, his son and son-in-law had been summoned at by Detective staff, Panchkula for the purpose of questioning and they were not kept in any illegal custody. The bag containing gold jewellery and proper documents as handed over by the accused-Narender Kumar is to be recovered from the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is required for that purpose. The gold jewellery and property documents sought
