IN THE 111-2,111-3 & 111 1. CRM-M- Gopal State of Punjab 2. CRM-M- Surinderpal Singh State of Punjab 3. CRM-M- Sonu Kumar State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. in CRM Mr. for Mr. in CRM Mr. Inspector ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ These FIR No. 15 dated 336, 340, 238 added Section 66(D) of Crime Khanna, District 2. Briefly registered against 6301/CFCFRMC THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH 111-4 CRM-M-69150 CRM-M-71420 CRM-M-9864 Date of decision: -69150-2025 VERSUS -71420-2025 Singh alias Deputy VERSUS -9864-2026 VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD . Harsh Vardhan Shehrawat, Advocate CRM-M-69150-2025. Mr. Gulzar Mohammad, Advocate (through the petitioner in CRM-M-71420- Mr. Sudesh Sahi, Advocate for the petitioner CRM-M-9864-2026. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab Inspector Vinod Kumar. ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) These three petitions seeking grant of dated 02.09.2025 registered under Sections added later on] of the Bharatiya of the Information Technology Act, District Ludhiana are being decided Briefly stated, facts of the case are against unknown persons, on the basis /CFCFRMC dated 21.07.2025 and letter PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 69150-2025 (O&M) 71420-2025(O&M) 9864-2026 (O&M) decision: 22.04.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent ...Petitioner ...Respondent ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.) -2025. petitioner Punjab assisted by of regular bail in case bearing Sections 318(4), 61(2) [Sections Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Act, 2000 at Police Station Cyber decided by a common order. are that the present FIR was basis of letter bearing No.6275- bearing No.7578/CFCFRMC SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.04.22 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 111-2,11-3 & 111-4 CRM-M-69150-2025 (O&M) CRM-M-71420-2025(O&M) CRM-M-9864-2026 (O&M) dated 20.08.2025, which pertained to the use of so-called “mule accounts” in financial frauds, as reflected on the I4C and NCR portal. The said letters included a list of 53 bank accounts which had been scrutinized. Upon verification on the NCR Portal, it was found that several complaints registered therein involved accounts that had been opened in various bank branches falling within the jurisdiction of Police District Khanna. The said information was brought to the notice of senior police officials and upon verification of the facts, the present FIR was registered against owners/operators of the said 53 bank accounts. 3. Learned State Counsel, on instructions from Inspector Vinod Kumar, contends that during the course of investigation, it came to light that multiple “mule accounts” had been opened in various bank branches within Khanna, District Ludhiana and that such accounts were being utilized for routing and withdrawing proceeds of fraudulent transactions. It is submitted that insofar as petitioner-Surinderpal (in CRM-M-71420-2025) and petitioner- Sonu Kumar (in CRM-M-9864-2026) are concerned, they are mule accounts who had, for nominal commission, permitted the use of their bank accounts by co-accused Rajan and Vicky Parshad. He further contends that, as per the modus operandi, the said co-accused Rajan and Vicky Parshad were engaged in arranging mule accounts at the State level and the entire operation was being co-ordinated by one Aaliya Ahmad, who being the master coordinator, was operating as many as 59 bank accounts across the country, in relation to which more than 125 complaints have been filed. It is submitted that the total amount of financial fraud, as ascertained so far, is to the tune of approximately Rs.41.75 Crores. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.04.22 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 111-2,11-3 & 111-4 CRM-M-69150-2025 (O&M) CRM-M-71420-2025(O&M) CRM-M-9864-2026 (O&M) 4. Learned State Counsel further contends that so far as petitioner- Gopal (in CRM-M-69150-2025) is concerned, he was engaged by the co- accused as the security guard on a commission of Rs.2,000/- a day, with the specific role of preventing the mule account holders from leaving the premises. It is submitted that as per the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons, the mule account holders were confined at a location and were not permitted to move outside, until such time as the entire amount routed through the mule accounts was disbursed or withdrawn. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner-Sonu Kumar was arrested on 06.09.2025, petitioner-Gopal was arrested on 13.09.2025 and petitioner- Surinderpal was arrested on 07.09.2025. It is contended that they had received commission for permitting the use of their accounts for financial frauds and facilitating transactions to be routed through the same. State Counsel, however, does not dispute that no investigation is pending qua the petitioners herein and the final report has already been filed against them. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along with the present petition. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioners are mere mule account holders, who for marginal monetary gain, permitted the use of their bank accounts and prima facie appear to be minor participants in a larger and more organized fraudulent network coupled with the period of custody already undergone by them as well as the fact that investigation qua them stands completed and further bearing in mind that the case would be triable by the Court of Magistrate, I deem it appropriate to allow the present petitions. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.04.22 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 111-2,11-3 & 111-4 CRM-M-69150-2025 (O&M) CRM-M-71420-2025(O&M) CRM-M-9864-2026 (O&M) 8. The instant petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 9. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly. 10. The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 22.04.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.04.22 19:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document