IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 Mayank Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.278 dated 31.12.2024 registered under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Cyber Manesar, District Gurugram.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner committed cyber fraud with the complainant for a sum of Rs.8,40,000/-, on the pretext of sanctioning loan to him. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern or involvement with the alleged fraud. He argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and initially, the FIR was registered against unknown person. He further argued that the petitioner is neither the beneficiary, nor has received any amount. He argued that the petitioner never called, met or induced the complainant at any point of time and therefore, false and frivolous allegations have been levelled against him. He further argued that no offence under Section 318(4) of BNS is made out against the petitioner as the contents of the FIR do not fulfill the ingredients of cheating in any manner. He further submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence which are already in possession of the complainant or the investigating agency, hence, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, vide order dated

12.01.2026.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the mobile numbers used in the commission of the offence and the beneficiary accounts have been found to be issued/opened in the name of the present petitioner. He further argued that an amount of Rs.8,40,000/- stood transferred in the two bank accounts of the petitioner maintained with Prathama UP Gramin Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank, which itself shows the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy and had orchestrated a well planned conspiracy to cheat the complainant. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused; to ascertain the names of other co-accused and to effect recovery of the amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations against him are serious in nature. He is alleged to have cheated and defrauded the complainant for Rs.8,40,000/- under the pretext of sanctioning a loan to him. The petitioner had deceived the complainant and played an active role in the crime. The allegations involve deep rooted cons