CRM-M-19851- IN THE H (216) SHIVA VERMA STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. J Mr. R *** MANISHA BATR 1. The i 483 of Bharatiya grant of regular registered under Nyaya Sanhita, 20 and Section 66C Cyber Crime, Dist 2. The a recorded by the c had received a Wh introducing himse money laundering premise that he co -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH CRM Dat RMA Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Jasvir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab *** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed b ratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 gular bail in case arising out of F nder Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3 ita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) (Section 66C and 66D of Information Tech e, District Bathinda. The aforementioned FIR was register the complainant Harinder Singh, all d a WhatsApp message and then a Wh himself as ASI Vijay Khanna posted i dering had been registered against him t he could be arrested in connection w JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-19851-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.05.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA vocate for the petitioner Punjab filed by the petitioner under Section a, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking t of FIR No.19 dated 03.09.2025 336(3), 337, 351(2) of Bharatiya ection 61(2) of BNS added later on) Technology Act at Police Station egistered on the basis of a statement gh, alleging that on 19.08.2025, he a WhatsApp call. The caller, while osted in CBI, told him that a case of nst him. By extending threats on the tion with that case, he subjected him ction king 2025 atiya r on) ation ment 5, he hile se of n the him AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.15 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19851- to digital arrest d complainant was accounts till 01.09 reported the matte 3. After initiated. During t Rs. 41 lakhs out o was credited in a out of the same, operative in the na apprehended. He s details of his bank of a sum of Rs. 10 said account, he h of accused Tejend co-accused Tejind the aforementione of Rs.8,00,000/- some signed chequ and the present p him by assuring th statement suffered accused Tejinder h purpose of withdr -2026 (O&M) 2 rrest during the period from 19.08.2 t was made to transfer an amount of l 01.09.2025. On realizing that he had matter to the police. After registration of the FIR, inv ring the course of investigation, it w s out of the money transferred from th d in a particular bank account mainta same, an amount of Rs. 8 lakh wa the name of accused Lovpreet Singh. d. He suffered a disclosure statement is bank account to co-accused Tejende Rs. 10,000/- and after transfer of an a t, he had given the same in cash to Va Tejender Singh. He further disclosed Tejinder Singh had again deposited a ntioned account and since his banker h withdrawn, hence accused Tejin cheques from him (Lovepreet Singh) sent petitioner accompanying him ha ring that they would give him more m uffered by accused Lovepreet Singh nder had taken him to the concerned withdrawal of money. The accused 19.08.2025 till 25.08.2025 and the unt of Rs. 90 lakh in different bank he had been duped of his money, he R, investigation proceedings were n, it was revealed that an amount of rom the account of the complainant, aintained with IndusInd Bank, and kh was transferred in the account Singh. The said Lovpreet Singh was ment to the effect that he had given ejender Singh and petitioner in lieu f an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the Varkha @ Verkha on the asking losed that the present petitioner and sited an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in nker had refused to get cash amount Tejinder Singh took debit card and ingh) pertaining to his bank account im had given sum of Rs.1,500/- to more money. As per the disclosure Singh, the petitioner and the co- cerned Branch of PNB Bank for the cused Lovepreet also identified the the bank y, he were nt of nant, , and ount was iven lieu n the king r and in ount and ount to sure - r the the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.15 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19851- petitioner and co footage of the cam the petitioner and accused. He was apprehended. Inve 4. It is a falsely implicated accused Lovepree evidence. He w transaction. He h contact with the c allurement whatso identification para since long. No re case registered ag No useful purpose therefore, argued t 5. Per c status report has v quite serious in na control of bank ac details of the same purpose of transf complainant by ch -2026 (O&M) 3 nd co-accused Tejinder Singh as we he camera installed in the Bank where er and to co-accused Tejinder. The p e was arrested on 03.10.2025. The a d. Investigation qua the petitioner stan It is argued by learned counsel for t licated in this case on the basis of di vepreet Singh which cannot be con He was not named in the FIR. H He had no role to play in the entire t the complainant. Neither any call n whatsoever had been made by him n parade of the petitioner has been go No recovery has been effected from red against him. The trial will take c urpose would be served by detaining h gued that he deserves to be released on Per contra, learned State counsel wh t has vehemently argued that the allega s in nature. He alongwith the co-accu ank account of the co-accused Lovep e same in greed of money and had use transfer of the money withdrawn fr t by cheating him. The petitioner alon as well as Varsha from the CCTV herein money was given by him to The petitioner was nominated as an The accused Tejinder could not be er stands concluded. l for the petitioner that he has been s of disclosure statement of the co- be considered to be admissible in R. He is not beneficiary of the ntire transaction. He never came in call nor any kind of inducement or him to the complainant. No test een got conducted. He is in custody from him. He is on bail in another take considerable time to conclude. ining him in custody anymore. It is, ased on bail. sel while placing reliance upon the allegations against the petitioner are accused Tejinder Singh had taken Lovepreet Singh who had provided ad used the said bank account for the awn from the bank account of the er alongwith the co-accused Tejinder CTV im to as an ot be been - le in f the e in nt or test tody other lude. It is, n the r are aken ided r the f the inder AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.15 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19851- Singh firstly got Lovepreet and go amount of Rs.8 la way of issuance of involved in one m with evidence, com bail. Bail petition broad submissions 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The p and Tejinder Sing and 8 lakhs from alluring him to pr withdrawal of mo purpose of fraudu committing cyber amount of Rs.2 la the co-accused Te the petitioner in established. The indicate his involv Keeping in view th offences were com -2026 (O&M) 4 y got deposited an amount of Rs.2 nd got it withdrawn from him. The s.8 lakhs in the same account and th nce of debit card and cheques. His an one more case of similar nature. Ther ce, committing similar offences or abs etition of co-accused Varsha has alread issions, it is urged that the petition doe This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner in connivance with th r Singh is alleged to have got withdr s from the bank account of the co to provide his account and to recei of money as deposited in that acco fraudulent transaction by way of tra cyber fraud. In the CCTV footage s.2 lakhs was withdrawn showed th sed Tejinder Singh and Lovepreet Si er in the commission of the subject The allegations as levelled again involvement in operational layer of view the magnitude of the amount invo re committed, the role of the petition Rs.2 lakhs in the bank account of . They had again got deposited an and the same was got withdrawn by His antecedents are not clean. He is There are chances of his tampering or absconding, if extended benefit of already been dismissed. With these on does not deserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel ith the co-accused Lovepreet Singh withdrawn an amount of Rs.2 lakhs he co-accused Lovepreet Singh by receive commission in lieu of the t account which was used for the of transfer of money received by otage of the bank from where the ed the petitioner present alongwith eet Singh. The active complicity of subject offences stands prima facie against the petitioner prima facie er of a well-organized cyber fraud. nt involved, the manner in which the etitioner in procuring account of the nt of d an n by He is ering fit of these unsel ingh lakhs h by f the r the d by e the with ty of facie facie raud. h the f the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.15 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19851- co-accused and reflecting the grav are on the rice. E his/her hard-earne that the petitioner abscond cannot be discussed facts, th not deserve to b dismissed. 8. It is, be construed as an and shall not influ 9. Since any, is rendered in 15.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 5 and facilitating withdrawal of fr e gravity of the allegations levelled a rice. Every day one or the other pub earned money. The apprehension r itioner may commit similar offences, not be stated to be unfounded at this cts, this Court is of the considered op to be extended benefit of bail. It is, however, clarified that the obse d as an expression of opinion of this C t influence the outcome of the trial in a Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MA Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:- Yes/No of fraudulently obtained money elled against him. Such like crimes er public person is being duped of sion raised by the respondent-State ences, tamper with evidence or may at this stage. In view of the above ered opinion that the petitioner does bail. Accordingly, the petition is e observations made above shall not this Court on the merits of the case ial in any manner.
dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE oned:- Yes/No es/No oney imes d of State may bove does n is l not case n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.15 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.