CRM-M-18711-2026 -1- (211) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18711-2026 Date of decision :13.07.2026 AMISHA PATEL ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Akhil Singh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.252 dated 21.10.2025 registered under Sections 308(7), 318(4), 61(2) BNS, 2023 (Sections 420, 120(B) IPC) at Police Station Cyber Crime Ballabgarh, Faridabad. 2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Vishnu Pad Chatterjee and the same reads as under:- “To, SHO PS Cyber Crime Ballabgarh, Faridabad Respected Sir, I am a resident of H. No. 2078, Sec-7D, Faridabad, Haryana - 121006 and I became a victim of this online digital arrest and financial scam that led to financial loss through two RTGS JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -2- transactions amounting total of INR 81,00,000 (Eighty One Lakhs).I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding a serious incident of digital arrest and financial scam that occurred between 14th Oct, 15th Oct, 16th Oct and 17th of Oct 2025.1 received the first call on 14-Oct-2025 at 2:29PM from (Mob:- 91 8433845949). This call was a normal phone voice call on my mobile number (Mob:- 91-9717310595). After that I received WhatsApp voice and video calls from (Mob:- 91 8981718981) on 14-Oct-2025 @ 3:50pm to 16-Oct-2025 from the same number on my WhatsApp number (Mob:- 8527706884) Also I received WhatsApp voice and video calls from (Mob:-8747957233) on 16-Oct-2025 @11:17am to 18- Oct-2025. And received another message from the same on 19- Oct-2025 @8:03am on my WhatsApp number (Mob:- 8527706884) These individuals falsely claimed to be officials from Department of telecommunication, DCP Bangalore and CBI Mumbai. They accused me of being involved in illegal activities (such as money laundering and human trafficking) and coerced me into believing that a case was registered against me. They stated that I was under a so-called "digital arrest" and kept me on a continuous video call, forcing me to make payments under fear and psychological pressure. As a result, I was deceived into making two financial transactions to the fraudsters as detailed below: Transaction 1:-Transaction Type:- RTGS Transaction ID:- SBINR52025101602567132 Transaction Date:- 16-Oct-2025 Amount:-INR 51,00,000.00 Beneficiary Name:- RAJ EDUCATIONAL TRUST Beneficiary A/c No.:- 431705001149 Beneficiary IFSC:-ICIC0004317 Transaction 2:- JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -3- Transaction Type:- RTGS Transaction ID:- SBINR52025101702715833 Transaction Date:- 17-Oct-2025 Amount:- INR 30,00,000.00 Beneficiary Name:- STRYPER TECH SOLUTION Beneficiary A/c No.:-010527000000917 Beneficiary IFSC:- YESB0000105 This complaint has also been registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, and the Incident Acknowledgement Number is 21310250050130, dated 19/Oct/2025. I request your office to kindly register my complaint under the relevant provisions and initiate an investigation to trace and apprehend the culprits involved in this fraud. I am enclosing the following documents for your reference and necessary action: 1. Bank statements showing the fraudulent transactions. 2. Screenshots/recordings of the suspects WhatsApp number. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, S.D/- Vishnu Pad Chatterjee H. No. 2078, Sector-7D, Faridabad Mob: 9717310595” 3. During the course of investigation, relevant records, including bank account statements, were obtained and examined. It transpired that out of the total amount of Rs.81,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- was transferred on 17.10.2025 into Current Account No. 010527000000917 of Stryper Tech Solution Pvt. Ltd. Further, an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- was transferred into Account No. 431705001149 of Raj Educational Trust on 17.10.2025. JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -4- The relevant records were obtained so as to ascertain the directors of the aforesaid company. Upon examination, it was revealed that the directors of the said company are co-accused Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav and co-accused Ajay Kumar. It was also discovered during investigation that Mahavir Singh is also one of the associates of accused Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav and Ajay Kumar. The records indicated that Mahavir Singh had been in direct contact with accused Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav and Ajay Kumar. Thereafter accused Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav, Ajay Kumar and Mahavir Singh were arrested on 27.10.2025. During the course of investigation, accused Ajay Kumar, Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav, and Mahavir Singh, in their supplementary disclosure statements, named the petitioner/Amisha Patel. Accused Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav got recovered one Apple mobile phone having e-SIM No. 8003442949, which was used in the commission of the present crime. Accused Ajay Kumar got recovered one Apple mobile phone having SIM No. 8285008551, and upon examination of the said device, WhatsApp chats pertaining to the present case were found. On the identification of accused Ajay Kumar and Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav, another accused, namely Manab Barman, was arrested on 02.11.2025. Manab Barman had been awaiting the presence of Ajay Kumar, Gokul Sisodiya, Lokesh, Vipin and Petitioner from the Guwahati Airport and had thereafter proceeded to take them to meet with Dharmender Soni @ Dhruv. He got recovered one POCO mobile phone JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -5- having SIM No. 882842654. Accused Manab Barman, in his disclosure statement, also named the petitioner/Amisha Patel. The name of co-accused Dharmender Soni @ Dhruv came forth in the disclosure statement of co-accused Gokul Sisodiya, Ajay Kumar and Mahavir. Accused Dharmender Soni @ Dhruv was thereafter arrested on 20.12.2025. He got recovered one Apple mobile phone having SIM No. 7651005151, which was used in the commission of the present crime. Upon examination of the said mobile phone, WhatsApp chats pertaining to the present case were found. Accused Dharmender Soni @ Dhruv, in his supplementary disclosure statement, also named the petitioner Amisha Patel. During investigation, it transpired that three mobile numbers i.e. 8433845949, 8981718981 and 8747957233 were the mobile numbers used from which calls were made both telephonic as well as WhatsApp video calls, which were ultimately used to conduct the digital arrests. During investigation, CAF of the aforesaid mobile numbers were obtained and examined. The scrutiny of the same revealed that the holders of the above said mobile numbers, viz. Monis Irshad Khan, SK Prins and Shaheda Banu, who although held these mobile numbers in their names, however, the act of digital arrests were conducted by some other individuals, whose identities are under investigation. The investigation can broadly be stated to be proceeding in two chains, i.e., the first chain pertaining to the money trail of Rs. JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -6- 30,00,000/- (relevant for the present case), and the second chain pertaining to the amount of Rs. 51,00,000/-. In furtherance of the investigation in the first chain pertaining to Rs. 30,00,000/-, two other accused persons, namely Lokesh and Vipin, have also surfaced whose whereabouts are being traced. As far as the second chain of investigation is concerned, it has been revealed that an amount of Rs. 51,00,000/- was credited into ICICI Bank Account No. 431705001149, which is in the name of Raj Educational Trust. In this regard, accused Bassist Kumar, a member of the said trust, was arrested from Patna, Bihar on 09.03.2026. It has further been ascertained that an amount of Rs. 1,11,588/- was credited into IDFC Bank Account No. 10107415693, which is in the name of Hemraj Yadav. Accused Hemraj Yadav and Ajay Gothwal were arrested on 23.02.2026. The name of Ajay Gothwal firstly came in investigation through the disclosure statement of Hemraj Yadav who had stated that the bank account of Hemraj Yadav was provided to Ajay Gothwal, who was the person who had thereafter used the said bank account and further conveyed the same to co-accused Rinku Meena. Ajay Gothwal had received a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from Rinku Meena in lieu of providing the bank account details, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to Hemraj Yadav. Another accused, namely Rinku Meena, was arrested on 26.02.2026 and got recovered one mobile phone, which had been used JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -7- for communication with his accomplices in connection with the present case. It was further revealed that he had broken and discarded the ATM card associated with the bank account used in the present case. Accordingly, Section 238(c) BNS was added in the present case on 01.03.2026. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has not been named in the FIR but only in the disclosure statement of the arrested accused. The entire case is based on documentary and electronic evidence already in possession of the Investigating Agency. She is a single mother of two minor children who are completely dependent upon her. As she is ready and willing to join investigation, she be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel while referring to the reply dated 27.04.2026 contends that during the course of investigation it was revealed that the petitioner is connected with a company namely, Industech RMC Pvt. Ltd. where co-accused Ajay Kumar, Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav and Mahavir Singh were employed. It has also come on record that in furtherance of a conspiracy the petitioner got a company namely, Stryper Tech Solution Pvt. Ltd. incorporated in the names of co-accused Ajay Kumar and Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav and got opened the current account No.010527000000917 in the name of the Company. In fact, the petitioner along with her co-accused agreed to JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -8- provide bank accounts for fraudulent transactions on commission basis and the petitioner was actively involved in facilitating and operationalising the said bank account for the commission of a cyber fraud. It has also been found during investigation that the petitioner has been using multiple numbers in the names of different persons including Anil Kumar to contact other accused. It has also been found during investigation that the petitioner accompanied Ajay Kumar, Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav, Mahavir Singh and others to Assam where the bank account kit was handed over to Dharmender Soni @ Dhruv and his associates for carrying out the fraudulent activities. Therefore, the petitioner being one of the active participants is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -9- No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -10- accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. 8. A perusal of the reply dated 27.04.2026 would enumerate the role of the petitioner and the same reproduced hereinbelow:- 5. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER AND EVIDENCE THEREOF That the role of the petitioner Amisha Patel, as revealed during the course of investigation and from the disclosure statements of co-accused persons, is that she is connected with a company named Industech RMC Pvt. Ltd., where co- accused Ajay Kumar, Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav, and Mahavir Singh were employed. The investigation insofar as relation between the Petitioner and M/s Industech RMC Pvt. Ltd., is being presently conducted. It has come on record that the petitioner, in furtherance of a pre-conceived criminal conspiracy, got a company namely Stryper Tech Solution Pvt. Ltd. incorporated in the names of co-accused Ajay Kumar and Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav, and caused the opening of Current Account No. 010527000000917 in the name of the said company. The disclosure statements of Ajay Kumar and Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav also reflects that the Petitioner had agreed to pay commission to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- each to them, however, the same had not been paid by the Petitioner to the above said co- accused persons. It has further been disclosed that upon being approached by co-accused Ajay Kumar, who had received an offer from accused Dharmender Soni @ Dhruv for providing bank accounts for fraudulent transactions on a commission JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -11- basis, the petitioner, along with other co-accused persons, agreed to the said illegal arrangement. The petitioner was actively involved in facilitating and operationalising the use of the aforesaid bank account for commission of cyber fraud, with full knowledge of the purpose for which the account was to be used. In duration of the entire intervening crime, the Petitioner had been using 9899142405, 8708693653, 9111817081. That mobile number 8708693653, although registered in the name of Anil Kumar, investigation and CDRs show that all the aforesaid numbers were being used by the Petitioner. That the Petitioner had used 8708693653 in order to contact accused Dharmender Soni @ Dhruv and there are WhatsApp chats between them. The said mobile number was also used by the Petitioner to contact Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav and Ajay Kumar. The CAF form of the above said mobile numbers and CDRs are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-6, and Annexure R-7, respectively. The investigation has further revealed that the petitioner accompanied co-accused Ajay Kumar, Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav, Mahavir Singh, and others to Guwahati/Nagaon (Assam), where the bank account kit, including SIM card, cheque book, ATM card, and other related documents of the aforesaid account, was handed over to accused Dharmender Soni @ Dhruv and his associates for carrying out the fraudulent activities. During the said visit, the petitioner remained present and played a key role in facilitating the execution of the conspiracy. It has also come on record that the petitioner was responsible for distribution of the commission amongst the co-accused persons and was to receive and control the proceeds of the fraud. The co- accused persons have categorically stated that their respective shares were to be disbursed by the petitioner. Further, WhatsApp chats recovered from the mobile phones of JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -12- the co-accused persons substantiate the involvement of the petitioner in arranging and handing over the aforesaid bank account for commission of the offence. The copy of extracted WhatsApp chats are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-8. The Call Detail Records (CDR) of the mobile numbers used by the petitioner have also been obtained and examined, which corroborate her presence and location in Assam along with other co-accused persons during the relevant period, as stated hereinabove. In view of the aforesaid material collected during investigation, it is evident that the petitioner is not merely an active participant, but is in fact the lead conspirator and one of the principal accused persons who facilitated and orchestrated the entire offence. The petitioner has been specifically named by co-accused Gokul Sisodiya @ Gaurav, Ajay Kumar, Mahavir Singh, Manab Barman, and Dharmender Soni @ Dhruv in their respective disclosure statements.” 9. From the investigation conducted so far, prima facie, it stands established that the petitioner has played an active role along with the other accused to defraud the complainant. Cyber frauds of the present kind are increasing manifold leading to innocent person being duped of their hard-earned money. Therefore, undue latitude cannot be shown to such an accused. 10. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the role played by the petitioner and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary. JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18711-2026 -13- 11. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed. 12. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made herein. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE 13.07.2026 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JITESH LAL 2026.07.14 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document