IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 109 CRM-M-33967-2026 Date of Decision.:16.06.2026 Vinamra Lodhi …..Pe//oner Vs. State of Haryana .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Hamid Hussain, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present peon filed under Secon 482 of the Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the peoner seeks grant of ancipatory bail in FIR No.30 dated 05.05.2025 registered under Secons 318 (4) & 61 of the Bharaya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Secons 420 and 120-B IPC) at Police Staon Cyber Crime, Hisar. 2. Learned counsel for the peoner contends that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submi7ed that the peoner is merely a student and had no knowledge regarding the alleged fraudulent acvies. According to learned counsel, co-accused persons had persuaded the peoner to become a Director of M/s Pansari Tech Infra Private Limited and he was unaware of the manner in which the affairs of the company were being conducted. It is further argued that upon coming to know of the alleged illegal acvies, the peoner himself approached the competent Court by filing a complaint under Secon 175(3) BNSS. Learned counsel submits that the peoner has no criminal antecedents, that the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.17 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33967-2026 -2- case is based upon documentary evidence and that custodial interrogaon is not required. Prayer has, therefore, been made for grant of ancipatory bail. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the peon and submits that the allegaons pertain to an organised cyber fraud racket operang under the guise of share market investments. It is argued that the peoner is admi7edly one of the Directors of M/s Pansari Tech Infra Private Limited, in whose bank account amounts siphoned from vicms of cyber fraud were deposited. Learned State counsel further submits that the invesgaon has revealed large-scale financial transacons through the said account and custodial interrogaon of the peoner is necessary to idenfy the beneficiaries of the fraud, trace the money trail and ascertain the involvement of other conspirators. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the pares and perused the paper-book. 5. The allegaons in the FIR are that the complainant was induced through online pla>orms and WhatsApp groups to invest money on the assurance of substanal returns through stock market trading. Acng upon such inducement, the complainant transferred various amounts into different bank accounts and ulmately suffered a loss of ₹18,17,000/-. During invesgaon, it surfaced that a part of the amount was transferred to Account No.91710010105043 maintained in the name of M/s Pansari Tech Infra Private Limited. The invesgaon further revealed that the peoner was one of the Directors associated with the said company. 6 At the stage of consideraon of ancipatory bail, the Court is not required to record definive findings regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court is only required to examine whether the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.17 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33967-2026 -3- allegaons disclose a prima facie case and whether the grant of pre-arrest bail would adversely affect the invesgaon. The principles governing ancipatory bail stand se7led by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1. 7. The record prima facie indicates that the peoner is not an unrelated third party. Rather, he is admi7edly a Director of the company, whose bank account was allegedly ulised for receipt and roung of funds obtained through cyber fraud. Significantly, the material collected during invesgaon indicates that within a period of approximately forty-three days, transacons exceeding ₹1.08 crore were credited and thereaEer withdrawn from the said account. Such transacons cannot be brushed aside as insignificant or roune in nature. 8. The defence projected by the peoner that he was merely a student and had no knowledge of the funconing of the company is a ma7er requiring invesgaon and appreciaon of evidence. At this stage, the said plea cannot be accepted on its face value, parcularly when the peoner admi7edly held the posion of Director in the company concerned. Whether he was a mere name lender or an acve parcipant in the operaons of the company is a ma7er that can only be effecvely ascertained during invesgaon. 9. The complaint subsequently filed by the peoner before the learned Magistrate also does not advance his case at this stage. Prima facie, the invesgang agency has pointed out that the said complaint was instuted long aEer the disputed transacons had taken place and, therefore, the explanaon offered by the peoner is a ma7er requiring thorough invesgaon. 10. Cyber fraud has emerged as a serious economic offence NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.17 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33967-2026 -4- affecng a large number of unsuspecng cizens. Economic offences involving digital pla>orms, layering of funds and movement of money through mulple bank accounts stand on a different foong from ordinary offences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that economic offences constute a disnct class of offences and require a strict approach while considering requests for pre-arrest protecon, parcularly when the invesgaon is at a crucial stage. 11. The requirement of custodial interrogaon in the present case cannot be ruled out. The invesgang agency is required to ascertain the complete money trail, idenfy the ulmate beneficiaries, trace the persons operang the bank accounts and uncover the larger conspiracy behind the cyber fraud. Such invesgaon may not be effecvely carried out if the peoner is granted the extraordinary protecon of ancipatory bail. 12.` Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegaons, the magnitude of the transacons involved, the prima facie connecon of the peoner with the company account through which the funds were routed and the necessity of a thorough invesgaon, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of ancipatory bail. 13. Consequently, the present peon is dismissed. 14. However, anything observed herein shall be construed only for the purpose of deciding the present peon and shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case during invesgaon or trial. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE June 16, 2024 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.17 19:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document