SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 10039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RUPINDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rupindra ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Date of Decision: February 16, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 16, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.26 dated 20.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4) and

319(2) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Patiala.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that a written complaint was received from Ramesh Kumar against unknown persons alleging a cyber fraud amounting to Rs.57,65,023/- on the pretext of investment in IPOs and Block Trade Stocks purportedly of IIFL Markets. The complaint was registered on the National Cyber Crime Portal vide Reference No.

32507250021928 dated 17.07.2025.

In his complaint, Ramesh Kumar stated that he is a retired Deputy Finance Officer from Indian Railways. He submitted the complaint through Cyber Helpline No.1930 regarding an online fraud involving Rs.57,65,023/-. He stated that on 18.06.2025, while at home, he received a WhatsApp message from mobile number 9100268411, claiming to represent IIFL Markets Company and inquiring whether he was interested in investing in the share market to earn profits. Subsequently, he was added to a WhatsApp group titled “G09-IIFL Securities Limited,” where several members were actively discussing investments and sharing screenshots showing profits from IPO and Block Trade investments. After observing these discussions and verifying certain details online, he developed trust in the scheme. Communication took place through multiple WhatsApp numbers. The number 9100268411 displayed a woman’s profile picture, and the person using it persuaded him to invest and provided a link to download a purported IIFL Markets application, which he installed on his mobile phone. His account was registered using his mobile number 7814008513, and a trading ID bearing No.81203448 was created. He was induced to believe that higher investments would result in higher returns. Thereafter, he was repeatedly provided with different beneficiary bank account details for transferring funds. Acting on their instructions and under the belief that the scheme was genuine, he transferred money in multiple transactions to various bank accounts. In this manner, a total amount of Rs.57,65,023/- was fraudulently obtained from him.

He further stated that within the fake application, his invested amount was reflected along with inflated profits. However, whenever he requested withdrawal of the funds, he was assigned new “tasks” requiring additional investments. On 07.07.2025, when he firmly insisted on withdrawing his money, he was asked to deposit an additional Rs.85,00,000/-. At that point, he realized that he had been deceived. He immediately contacted the official number of IIFL, where he was informed that no such investment scheme was being operated by the company. Accordingly, he alleged that unknown persons had dishonestly induced him through WhatsApp and cheated him of his retirement savings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 04.10.2025. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was merely giving his advice for stock investiment and no culpability can be fixed against him. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve the con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top