IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6208-2026 (O&M)

Decided on: 23.02.2026 ANUGYA PRATAP SINGH …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.94 dated 16.03.2025 under Sections 318(4), 319 of BNS, 2023 (later on Sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS added later on) registered at Police Station Cyber Crime West, District Gurugram, Haryana.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant namely, Manish Pandey submitted a complaint to Cyber West Gurugram Police Station regarding an online investment fraud of ₹58,32,500. On 20 January 2025, he was contacted via WhatsApp by a fraudulent investment group named Saif India VI FII Holdings Limited, which claimed to be a SEBI-registered firm (Securities and Exchange Board of India) with an address at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai. The complainant transferred funds to multiple accounts between the period from 23 January and 12 March 2025 as instructed by the group, but when he attempted to withdraw his investment on 12 March 2025, he was blocked on all platforms.

The allegations against the present petitioner are that he being the CRO (Customer Relationship Officer) at Bandhan Bank, manipulated the bank account details and changed the phone number linked with the account of one Aslam. Thereafter, he sold the account number, for committing cyber fraud, after changing the link phone number. The petitioner is also alleged to have received a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- for the same, out of which he further gave Rs.50,000/- each to three co-accused and kept the remaining amount with himself.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused namely Jitender Kumar and Ankit Sharma who have already been granted the concession of bail by the learned trial Court; no amount was received by the petitioner; at the relevant time, petitioner was employed as CRO (Customer Relationship Officer and was performing front desk duties only; the bank account allegedly used in the commission of offence was opened by co-accused Jitender Kumar and authorized by co-accused namely Ankit Sharma, who was the Assistant Branch Head (both granted bail by the trial Court); the account holder namely Aslam, has compromised the matter with the co- accused; entire case is based on documentary evidence, hence custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required; the petitioner is ready to join the investigation, hence sought the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the State by way of filing of status report dated 19.02.2026, argued the petitioner is the main accused and had active involvement in commission of the fraud. He misused his position as Customer Relationship Officer and changed the phone number linked to account No.10210005193751 maintained with Bandhan Bank. For the same, Rs.3,96,000/- were received by the petitioner in the account of Aslam. Rs.50,000/- were given by the petitioner to co-accused namely Jitendra Kumar in exchange for account details and SIM; Rs.50,000/- were given to co-accused Ankit Sharma for giving his consent on Customer Request Form and Corporate Internet Banking User Details Modification Form to start net banking in the bank account; Rs.50,000/- were given to co-accused Shubham Kaushik to remove the hold from Bandhan Bank Account No.10210005193751, by using hi bank ID. Thus, all co-accused were working on the asking, and at the behest of the petitioner. Even the Customer Request Form to update the linked mobile number with the account in question was duly signed by the petitioner. Further, out of the amount of Rs.3,96,000/- received in account of Aslam, R