CRM-M-71893- IN THE H AMRITPAL SIN STATE OF PUNJ 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The 483 of Bharatiya of regular bail in under Sections 3 Sanhita, 2023 (for Act, at Police Stati -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH L SINGH @ DOCTOR Versus
PUNJAB he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. G.S. Nahel, Advocate for the peti Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed atiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case arising out of FIR No.05 ons 318(4), 61(2), 336(2), 336(3) a 3 (for short “BNS”) and Section 66(D e Station Cyber Crime, Mansa, Distric JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRM-M-71893-2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 20.02.2026 onounced 26.02.2026 loaded on the 26.02.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA
he petitioner by the petitioner under Section , 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant 05 dated 19.06.2025 registered 6(3) and 338 of Bharatiya Nyaya n 66(D) of Information Technology District Mansa. M) oner
dent ction grant tered yaya logy AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71893- 2. The statement recorde had been comm Rs.32,69,182/-. initiated. It was re website www.gore course of investig account of the co revealed that an a maintained with C was found credited bank account ma operative in the name of Amritpal had also been colle the petitioner alon amount from the H nominated as acc The petitioner wa petitioner suffered amount of Rs.9,4 account of Atul Sanjeev Kumar, was kept by hi -2025 (O&M) 2 The aforementioned FIR was reg corded by the complainant Jagsir Si committed with him and he was . After registration of FIR, inv was revealed that on the pretext of pr w.gorentalsnow.com, fraud was comm vestigation, all the bank accounts in the complainant was credited/transfe t an amount of Rs.11,72,123/- was c with City Union Bank by one Vikas. redited from the above mentioned ban nt maintained with HDFC Bank, name of one Atul. In the said ac ritpal i.e. the present petitioner, CCT n collected and it was revealed that on r alongwith 02 unknown persons had the HDFC bank account through ch as accused whereas Atul above name er was arrested on 28.10.2025. As p uffered a disclosure statement admitti Rs.9,49,000/- from HDFC Bank, Se Atul Kumar through cheque and ha who had given him 10% commiss by him. On his disclosure, othe s registered on the basis of the sir Singh alleging that cyber fraud was cheated of an amount of R, investigation proceedings were t of promotion of rental property via s committed upon him. During the nts in which money from the bank /transferred, were verified. It was was credited into the bank account Vikas. An amount of Rs.9,38,927/- ed bank account of Vikas in another ank, SAS Nagar, Mohali Branch said account, there was reference of , CCTV footage of the HDFC Bank on 31.05.2025, accused Atul and s had withdrawn the aforementioned cheque. Accused Amritpal was named was made as an approver. . As per the further allegations, the admitting that he had withdrawn an nk, Sector 15, Panchkula from the and had given the said amount to mmission and the remaining amount other persons were nominated. the fraud t of were y via g the bank was ount - other anch ce of nk l and oned was over. , the n an the nt to ount ated. AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71893- Investigation qua presented in the C 3. It is a falsely implicated money has ever b offender is unknow direct or indirect offences. His link any documentary statement of Atul footage to show unverified police for transaction bu The money trail is of transfer of mon the present petitio communicated w investigation. No anymore. He is denied benefit of chances of conclu petition deserves t -2025 (O&M) 3 n qua the petitioner’s stands concl the Court. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. He was not name ever been deposited in his bank accou nknown. He is roped in only on the b direct evidence to link him with th is linkage with the case is not based entary evidence. He has been nom f Atul who has not been arrayed as show his presence. The allegations lice assertions. As per the allegatio ion but no certified digital evidence h trail is completely unsubstantiated. T f money from the accounts of accuse petitioner. There is no call detail rec ted with the complainant. He i n. No useful purpose would be serve He is on bail in other cases as regis fit of bail due to his involvement i onclusion of trial in the near future. erves to be allowed. concluded and challan has been l for the petitioner that he has been t named in the FIR. No amount of account. The identity of the actual n the basis of suspicion. There is no ith the commission of the subject based on any digital trail, CCTV or en nominated on the basis of the ed as accused. There is no CCTV ations to this effect are based on legations, he had used Binance App ence has been procured against him. ted. There is no documentary proof accused to the account of Atul or to tail record to show that he had ever He is not required for further served by detaining him in custody registered against him and cannot ment in such cases. There are no ture. It is, therefore, argued that the been been nt of ctual is no bject V or the CTV d on App him. roof or to ever rther tody nnot no t the AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71893- 4. Per report has argued of the subject offe the bank account unknown person a Branch. While sh has argued that th offences in quest There are chances benefit of bail. It allowed. 5. This C for the parties at co 6. The syndicate, indulge cyber fraud. The had gone to withd bank account of th amount of money Sanjeev Kumar in linked with this c turned approver. accused at HDFC -2025 (O&M) 4 Per contra, learned State counsel rgued that the petitioner was an active ct offences. An amount of Rs.9,39,0 count of Atul, was withdrawn by him rson as on 31.01.2025 from the HDF hile showing the CCTV footage to thi that the active complicity of the petiti question is, prima facie established ances of his committing similar offen ail. It is, therefore, argued that the p This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner is alleged to have been ndulged in cheating public persons by . The allegations against the petition withdraw a sum of Rs.9,39,000/- w t of the complainant to the account o money had been subsequently give mar in lieu of 10% of share/commiss this case on the basis of statement re over. The CCTV footage shows hi HDFC Bank Sector 15 Panchkula Br while relying upon the status active participant in the commission .9,39,000/- which was transferred in y him, the co-accused Atul and one e HDFC Bank, Sector 15 Panchkula to this Court, learned State counsel petitioner in the commission of the lished. He is a habitual offender. r offences or absconding, if extended t the petition does not deserve to be ubmissions made by learned counsel e been a member of the cyber crime ons by subjecting them to victims of etitioner are that he alongwith Atul which was transferred from the ount of co-accused Atul and the said given by him to the co-accused mmission. The petitioner has been ent recorded by one Atul who was ws his presence alongwith the co- ula Branch as on 31.05.2025 and is tatus ssion ed in one kula unsel f the nder. nded to be unsel rime s of Atul the said used been was - is AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-71893- prima facie suffici of cyber crime. T of similar nature a the rise and have criminals are us institutions. A st day, one comes a citizens is siphone not only cause fi confidence in the facts and circum petitioner does no ground to allow th 7. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 8. Since any, is rendered in 26.02.2026 Amit Sharma

-2025 (O&M) 5 sufficient to prove his complicity in t me. The petitioner is facing trial in on ature and hence his antecedents are no d have become a growing menace using sophisticated methods to A stringent approach for deterring the mes across instances where the har iphoned off by organized groups of on use financial loss to individual victi in the security of digital transactions. ircumstances, this Court is of the oes not deserve to be released on b low the petition, the same is dismissed It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes 
 

ity in the commission of the offence l in one case of dacoity and one case are not clean. Cyber crimes are on nace in today's digital age. Cyber s to target public persons and ing the offenders is required. Every he hard-earned money of innocent s of online fraudsters. Such offences victim but also undermine public tions. Keeping in view the aforesaid f the considered opinion that the on bail. Accordingly, finding no missed. vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing en dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
Yes/No
ence case re on yber and very cent nces ublic esaid t the g no y for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.02.26 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.