Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation and to unravel the truth in the cyber financial fraud case. The Court dismissed the bail application, stating that the petition was devoid of merits and that no exceptional or compelling circumstance had been demonstrated to warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. It further clarified that nothing stated in the order shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon the merits of the case or investigation. The Bench disposed of the pending applications, if any, along with the petition.

The present petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered for offences under Section 318(4) of BNS at Cyber Police Station, Narnaul. The FIR was lodged by the complainant, Udai Singh, who alleged fraudulent withdrawals from his joint bank account maintained with his wife at Punjab National Bank, New Mandi Branch, Narnaul.

Also Read: Summoning Of Accused Under Section 319 CrPC Restored | Unproven Alibi Cannot Override Sworn Testimony | Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order In Suicide Abetment Case

According to the complainant, on 31.08.2024, he received calls from two mobile numbers purporting to be bank officials requesting payment of loan interest. He informed the caller that he had already made advance payments towards the loan. Subsequently, he was informed that the amount had already been withdrawn from the loan account and was asked to visit the branch. Upon examining the bank account statement, the complainant discovered unauthorised debit transactions amounting to Rs. 25,00,000. Specifically, three transactions of Rs. 5,00,000 each were recorded on 09.08.2024 and two additional transactions of Rs. 5,00,000 each were recorded on 10.08.2024, carried out via RTGS and IMPS without his knowledge or consent.

He stated that he does not use internet banking for this account and suspects the withdrawals were made fraudulently by unidentified individuals. A formal complaint was lodged with the Branch Manager and an online complaint was also filed through the Cyber Crime Portal. The FIR was registered under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and investigation commenced.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the transactions occurred before 31.08.2024 but the complainant lodged the complaint only on 03.09.2024 without any plausible explanation for the delay. It was argued that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and the petitioner had not been named as an accused. The counsel asserted that the petitioner was suffering from neurological and psychiatric disorders since 2017 and was under medical treatment, being unable to manage or open a bank account independently.

It was contended that a close relative, who is a co-accused, exploited the petitioner’s vulnerability by opening a bank account in his name and registering his own mobile number for operating the account. The petitioner had no knowledge of funds credited to the account which was solely operated by the co-accused, who maintained possession of the cheque book, passbook, ATM card, and had access to internet banking. The counsel asserted that there was no direct allegation of embezzlement or misappropriation attributable to the petitioner, no recovery was to be made from him, and custodial interrogation was neither necessary nor justified. It was submitted that the petitioner, aged 22 years, was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

Conversely, the State counsel opposed the bail plea submitting that the offence was serious and a substantial portion of the misappropriated amount, specifically Rs. 10,00,000, had been traced to the petitioner’s Union Bank account. The State counsel contended that custodial interrogation was imperative to unravel the broader conspiracy, identify co-conspirators, and recover the defrauded amount.

The Court recorded: “Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant namely Udai Singh with regard to cyber financial fraud.”

It observed: “Prima facie, it emerges from the record that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, is alleged to have been involved in the commission of cyber financial fraud against the complainant.”

The Court stated: “As per the stand of the State, the petitioner appears to have facilitated the fraudulent activity by permitting the use of his bank account. Furthermore, during the course of investigation, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 was transferred into Union Bank Account No. 207722010001791, which is registered in the name of the petitioner-accused.”

It recorded: “This fact, coupled with other circumstances detailed in the investigation, points towards the active complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence.”

The Court further observed: “The police have asserted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for the purpose of effectively unravelling the modus operandi of the accused persons, identifying the broader nexus involved in the fraud, and recovering the siphoned amount.”

It recorded: “The nature and gravity of the offence, involving organized cybercrime and financial deceit, necessitate a thorough investigation, which, at this stage, cannot be conducted without the petitioner being in custody.”

The Court stated: “Moreover, even considering the medical grounds raised by the petitioner, no exceptional or compelling circumstance has been demonstrated which would warrant the grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious economic offence.”

Finally, it observed: “Given the inherent nature and profound gravity of such offences, and their wide-ranging cascading effects on both society and financial institutions, this Court finds itself disinclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed for.”

Also Read: Punjab And Haryana High Court : Challenge To Single Member Appellate Authority Under Air And Water Acts Rejected | Presence Of Expert Member Rendered Immaterial Post NGT Constitution

The Court directed: “Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation and to unravel the truth.”

It further directed: “The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.”

The Court clarified: “Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.”

It concluded: “Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. G.S. Thind, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana

Case Title: Suhail vs. State of Haryana
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:078633
Case Number: CRM-M-22968-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel