Punjab & Haryana HC: “Vigilance Must Start at Entry Point, Not by Blanket Denial of Bail” — Bail Granted to Foreign National in Cyber Fraud Case
Isabella Mariam
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a foreign national accused in a cyber fraud case, observing that while there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner, his status as a first-time offender and the period of pre-trial custody weigh against further detention. The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara recorded that “there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged fraud; however, considering the fact that the petitioner is a first offender and his pre-trial custody in relation to the amount received by him as stipulated in the status report regarding his role, it is not a case for further pre-trial incarceration.”
The court ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, provided that he is not required in any other case.
The matter arose from an FIR registered at Cyber West Police Station, Gurugram, under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
According to the facts presented in the State’s reply, the complainant, Satya Prakash Kothari, alleged that on 07.06.2024, he received WhatsApp messages from two mobile numbers, inducing him to invest in the stock/share market. Acting on these inducements, the complainant transferred ₹2,81,89,034 from two bank accounts. Later, when he attempted to withdraw funds, the application declined the request, resulting in a substantial financial loss.
The investigation revealed that the SIM cards used for the alleged fraud were registered in the names of Muthu Bharthi and Satish Kumar, who stated under Section 180 BNSS that their SIM cards were activated without their knowledge by one R. Surya. The State further submitted that “the accused R. Surya was joined in the investigation on 04.08.2024 after issuing notice u/s 35(3) BNSS. It came forth that the said accused had fraudulently issued various other sim cards in a similar manner and he had sold as many as 120 sim cards to one Divakaran at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sim card.”
The State submitted that “the accused Divakaran was joined in the investigation on 05.08.2024 after issuing notice u/s 35(3) BNSS. His disclosure statement was recorded wherein he stated that he had sold the above mentioned 120 sim cards to Malaysian residents namely Muhammad Jamil (present petitioner) and Kadar Gani Bin Naina Mohammad at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per sim card.” The police also recovered Divakaran’s mobile phone, which contained WhatsApp chats with the petitioner, and took into possession photocopies of the passports and photographs of Muhammad Jamil and the co-accused.
Following this, Look Out Circulars were issued on 05.09.2024 for both Muhammad Jamil and Kadar Gani Bin Naina Mohammad. On 18.12.2024, immigration authorities at Trichy International Airport, Tamil Nadu, detained the petitioner in accordance with the Look Out Circular. The State informed the court that “thereupon, Insp. Naveen Kumar along with other officials reached Trichy Airport and the petitioner Muhammad Jamil was arrested in the present case on 19.12.2024.”
The petitioner’s disclosure statement was recorded, leading to the recovery of an Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max and a SIM card. He was subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gurugram, and remanded to judicial custody.
The challan against Muhammad Jamil and his co-accused was submitted to the court on 14.02.2025. The trial is currently pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, and is fixed for arguments on charge. The State recorded that “there are total 20 PWs in the present case and none has been examined as the charges are yet to be framed.”
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner prayed for bail, subject to stringent conditions, citing prolonged incarceration and the petitioner’s status as a first-time offender. The State opposed the plea on the ground of the petitioner’s alleged involvement in cyber fraud and the magnitude of the financial loss.
The court directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to certain conditions. The order stated that “provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.”
Justice Anoop Chitkara added that “before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.” The petitioner is also required to mention specific personal identification details while furnishing the personal bond, including “passport number and details, Permanent Identification Number(s) (if available), Mobile number (if available), E-Mail id (if available).”
The court further recorded that “the petitioner shall comply with all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all scheduled dates.” Additionally, the petitioner has been directed not to “tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.”
The order further states that “if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.” The court clarified that “any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.”
Citing the judgment in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2025-INSC-30, the Bench directed that “the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police is to send a downloaded copy of this order to the Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, framed under the Foreigners Act, 1946.” The court further recorded that “upon receiving the communication, the concerned Foreign Registration Officer shall notify all relevant authorities, including civil authorities, in accordance with the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
The court also discussed systemic issues associated with delayed trials involving foreign nationals, stating that “justice delayed is justice denied, but in the context of foreign nationals, justice prolonged is justice misplaced.” The judgment noted that foreign nationals facing trial in India are subject to uncertainty and legal limbo and recorded that “delayed trials and resultant legal limbo engender uncertainty in these individuals, compounding their fears within an unfamiliar jurisdiction and an unaccustomed to, legal system.”
The Bench further recorded that “the cornerstone of an effective deterrence mechanism lies in rigorous pre-admission scrutiny—comprehensive background verifications before visa issuance and the immediate revocation of visas upon credible and substantial allegations.”
To this end, Justice Chitkara directed the trial court to prioritize the matter, recording that “this Court requests the Trial Court to prioritize and accelerate adjudication in this matter, balancing the necessities of due process with the principles of swift and faultless justice.”
The court further directed that “a certified copy of this order is not required for furnishing bonds.” It permitted advocates for the petitioner to download and attest this order as a true copy for use in court proceedings.
The petition was allowed on the above terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Abbas B, Advocate, Bhumika Khatri, Advocate and Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Aashish Bishnoi Deputy Advocate General
For the Complainant: Budhadev Maity , Advocate
Case Title: Muhammad Jamil v. State of Haryana
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:038828
Case Number: CRM-M-7194-2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara
[Read/Download order]
