Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 27687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manisha Batra, J
Prakash Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-58087-2025 (O&M)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Gupta
For the Respondents: Himani Arora

Bail may be denied in organized cyber fraud cases involving 'digital arrest' and significant financial loss when there is prima facie evidence of active facilitation and the accused has a history of similar criminal antecedents.

Headnote:The petitioner sought regular bail under S.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR involving allegations of organized cyber fraud. The case involved the impersonation of Reserve Bank of India and Mumbai Police officials, using the tactic of "digital arrest" to coerce the complainant into transferring Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The court found that the petitioner actively facilitated the fraud by arranging bank account credentials and coordinating with co-accused members of a larger racket. The primary issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail despite the gravity of the offense and his alleged active role. The court reasoned that the petitioner's role was an "integral part of the mechanism through which the fraud was executed" and that the recovery of a mobile phone with incriminating recordings, along with a financial trail, provided prima facie evidence. The court further noted that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in other similar FIRs, making him a risk for absconding or repeating the offense. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding a coordinated cyber fraud involving digital arrest and fund diversion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. competing arguments regarding admissibility of disclosure statements versus organized criminal activity. (Para 6 , 7)
3. evaluation of active facilitation, financial trails, and criminal antecedents in determining bail eligibility. (Para 8 , 9)
4. dismissal of bail application based on the gravity of cyber crime and risk of recidivism. (Para 10 , 11)

Sr. No.	Particulars	Details
1	The date when the judgment is reserved	25.03.2026
2	The date when the judgment is pronounced	30.03.2026
3	The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website	30.03.2026
4	Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced	Full
5	The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof	Not applicable

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 264 dated 17.12.2024, registered under Sections 308(2), 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 351(4) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 [ Sections 238 and 241 of BNS added later on] at Police Station Cyber Crime, Panipat.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Mukesh Kumar Garg alleging that he received a phone call on 07.12.2024 at about 12:15 PM from mobile number 87094115474, wherein the caller falsely represented himself as an official from the Reserve Bank of India and informed that a credit card had been fraudulently issued in the name of the complainant using his documents, allegedly involving a fraud of Rs. 2 crores. On 08.12.2024 at about 10:09 PM, the complainant received a WhatsApp video call from mobile number 918543982626, wherein the caller impersonated as an officer of the Mumbai Police and claimed that the complainant was under “digital arrest” in connection with the said alleged fraud. The complainant was kept under continuous video surveillance for approximately 11 hours and 37 minutes. During this period, the accused persons threatened the complainant with dire consequences, including threats to his life and that of his family and demanded Rs.1 crore for avoiding arrest. They further sent a forged document bearing the National Emblem and purporting to be issued by the Mumbai Police to lend authenticity to their threats. Acting under fear and coercion, the complainant transferred a total sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (one crore rupees) in the following manner:

• Rs.65,00,000/- on 08.12.2024 via RTGS from his Indian Bank account to DBS Bank account No. 8858210000006514;

• Rs.23,00,000/- on 12.12.2024 via RTGS from his PNB account to IndusInd Bank account No. 259601615856;

• Rs.12,00,000/- on 16.12.2024 via RTGS to ICICI Bank account No. 186905001629.

3. As per the further allegations, during the period from 07.12.2024 to 16.12.2024, the complainant continued to receive WhatsApp video calls from numbers 918543982626 and 919057758801. The callers also impersonated officials of the Enforcement Directorate and repeatedly threatened arrest unless the demanded amounts were paid. The complainant later, upon consulting acquaintances, realized that he had been deceived and defrauded by unknown persons impersonating government officials. He reported the incident to the cyber helpline (1930) and registered an online complaint bearing No. 31312240068089. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated.

4. During the course of investigation, the relevant records of the bank account of the complainant and aforementioned three bank accounts were analyzed. The aforesaid bank account open

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 27687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHManisha Batra, JPrakash Chaudhary – AppellantVersusState of Haryana – RespondentCRM-M-58087-2025 (O&M)

Bail may be denied in organized cyber fraud cases involving 'digital arrest' and significant financial loss when there is prima facie evidence of active facilitation and the accused has a history of similar criminal antecedents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manisha Batra, J
Prakash Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-58087-2025 (O&M)