CRM-M-13348-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 CRM-M-13348-2026 Date of decision: 6th July, 2026 Arun ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Namish Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 28 dated 07.11.2024 registered under Sections 308(2), 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Sections 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station State Cyber Crime, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the respondent-State which read as follows: - “3. That, the afore-mentioned FIR was registered on the complaint of Mahendra Prakash Vyas S/o Sohan Raj R/o VP Operations, Poddar Tyres Limited, Jugiana, Ludhiana, who was fraudulently induced by PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13348-2026 -2- unknown persons impersonating as officials of DHL and law enforcement agencies including Mumbai Police, Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate, who falsely alleged involvement of the complainant in a criminal case relating to prohibited items and money laundering. Under threat of arrest and coercion through continuous WhatsApp calls and fabricated proceedings, the complainant was compelled to disclose personal and financial details and transfer a total sum of ₹72,00,000/- through RTGS between 09.10.2024 and 22.10.2024 to various bank accounts provided by the accused persons on the pretext of verification and security deposit. The details of the fraudulent transactions are as follows: Sr. no. Account No. of Victims Date Amount (In Rs.) Beneficiary Details (Account No., Name & Address) 1. 20070100000918 (Bank of Baroda) 09-10-2024 54,00,000/- 094505501348 (ICICI Bank), UMATH INFOTECH, Indore, MP 2. 20070100000918 (Bank of Baroda) 16-10-2024 10,50,000/- 10181442119 (IDFC Bank), Aaditya Services, Aurangabad 3. 20070100000918 (Bank of Baroda) 22-10-2024 7,50,000/- 201029737717 (IndusInd Bank), Superfast Logistics, Mohali Total Amount 72,00,000/- 3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that an amount of Rs. 54 lakhs from the bank account of the petitioner was transferred to one particular account operated in ICICI Bank. From the said amount, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was further transferred to an account which was found to be registered in the name of the present petitioner and operative in Union Bank of India. It was also revealed that the aforementioned amount was withdrawn by the petitioner on the same day through cheque. The petitioner was nominated as an accused. The investigation further revealed that he was PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13348-2026 -3- already confined in custody in connection with another case. His presence was secured by way of production warrants and he was formally arrested in this case on 19.05.2025. Investigation now stands concluded and the charge-sheet against him stands presented. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. The amount of Rs. 5 lakh had been transferred in the account of one Umar Infotech. There was no direct transfer into this account from the bank account of the complainant. The petitioner had dealings with the co-accused from whose account this amount had been credited into his bank account. However, he was not aware of the fraudulent source of the funds. He is in custody since long. His custodial interrogation is not required for further investigation. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, thus argued that he deserves to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, while relying upon the status report, learned State counsel has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and specific in nature. An amount of Rs. 5 lakh out of the defrauded amount of Rs. 54 lakh had been transferred into the bank account of the petitioner and was withdrawn by the petitioner himself on the same day, thereby showing his active complicity in the crime. He is a man of criminal antecedents, as two more cases of similar nature have already been registered against him. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended the PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13348-2026 -4- benefit of bail. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. The active complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the subject offence stands prima facie established in view of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner. He is shown to have joined the cyber fraudsters in duping the complainant of an amount of Rs. 54 lakh. His bank account was used for the purpose of transfer of an amount of Rs. 5 lakh, which clearly indicates his active and conscious participation. The plea that he was not named in the FIR does not inspire any confidence at this stage. The offence in question is not an isolated act but part of an organized cyber fraud wherein, by providing banking channels forms a crucial link in execution of the crime. Cyber crimes are steadily increasing and have a deep-rooted impact on society, targeting unsuspecting citizens and eroding public confidence in digital platforms. Such offences are serious economic crimes, affecting not only the victim but the financial system at large and, therefore, require a strict approach at the stage of bail. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the offences were committed, the part played by the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 8. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13348-2026 -5- construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 6th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document