CRM-M-21712-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (102) CRM-M-21712-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.07.2026 SOHAN LAL … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. D.K. Tuteja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Akshay Lallar, Advocate with Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2/Complainant. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) CRM-28389-2026 1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant- petitioner seeking permission to place certain additional documents on record. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, and the same being duly supported by sufficient cause, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the following documents are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions:- (i) Registration Certificate of Rajiv Kumar dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-8); GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21712-2026 (O&M) -:2:- (ii) Udyam Registration Certificate of Rajiv Kumar dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-9); (iii) Account Opening Form of Rajiv Kumar (Annexure P-10); (iv) Statement of Account of the complainant maintained with State Bank of India dated 28.08.2007 (Annexure P-11); and (v) Statement of Account of the complainant maintained with Axis Bank (Annexure P-12). Main Case 3. The present is the first petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 18 dated 22.02.2026, registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 241 (added subsequently) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 420, 120-B and 204 IPC), at Police Station Cyber Crime, Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1). 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Shakin Singh, alleged that while browsing Facebook on 17.01.2026, he came across an online investment advertisement purportedly featuring the Finance Minister encouraging the public to invest through a specified link. Acting upon the representation, the complainant registered himself by furnishing his mobile number and email address and thereafter received calls from an international number. At the instance of the callers, he created a trading account on the website Proxtrend.com bearing Account No. TA24031467 and initially deposited a sum of 19,234/-. Thereafter, ₹ allegedly acting on the assurances of persons identifying themselves as K. Rajesh and Vishal, who projected themselves as Managers of the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21712-2026 (O&M) -:3:- investment platform, the complainant successively transferred various amounts aggregating to 26,73,678/- ₹ , besides an additional amount of ₹13,78,532/- , the particulars whereof were stated to be unavailable, into the bank accounts specified by the alleged fraudsters. It is alleged that the complainant was dishonestly induced to part with the aforesaid amounts on the false promise of lucrative investment returns, thereby making him a victim of cyber fraud, on the basis whereof the present FIR came to be registered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Rajiv Kumar. It is contended that no recovery remains to be effected from the petitioner and that his custodial interrogation is wholly unwarranted. Learned counsel further submits that in the disclosure statement recorded on 07.03.2026, the co-accused did not attribute any role whatsoever to the petitioner. However, in a subsequent disclosure statement allegedly recorded on 08.03.2026, it was stated that the petitioner had assisted Rajiv Kumar in opening a bank account and that an amount of 35,000/- ₹ had been paid to him by one Amit Kumar. It is argued that the petitioner has been sought to be implicated solely on the basis of the aforesaid subsequent disclosure statement, pursuant to which he was served with a notice to join the investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that in the absence of any independent incriminating material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, and as no custodial interrogation is required, the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21712-2026 (O&M) -:4:- 6. Per contra, learned State counsel, duly assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, while placing reliance upon the impugned order and the material collected during the course of investigation, has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is one of the principal conspirators involved in a well-organized cyber fraud racket and played a pivotal role in facilitating the commission of the offence. According to the prosecution, the petitioner arranged bank accounts of various individuals for the purpose of parking the proceeds of cyber fraud and induced co-accused Rajiv Kumar to hand over the documents relating to his firm as well as SIM cards, in consideration of 35,000/- ₹ , to one Amit Kumar. It is further contended that the petitioner was fully aware of the financial transactions carried out through the account of Rajiv Kumar and was actively involved in the operation of the fraudulent network. Learned State counsel further submits that SIM cards bearing Nos. 9812040924 and 9518810045, allegedly procured by the petitioner and utilized by Rajiv Kumar, are yet to be recovered. It is argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative to unearth the entire conspiracy, identify the remaining members of the syndicate, recover the incriminating articles, trace the money trail, and ascertain the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons in duping innocent investors by luring them with promises of exorbitant returns through fraudulent investment applications. It is further submitted that the complainant alone has been defrauded of ₹40,52,210.59/- , out of which 8,00,000/- ₹ was allegedly routed through a mule bank account arranged by the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21712-2026 (O&M) -:5:- contended that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the paper book as well as the material available on record with their able assistance. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, who is prima facie alleged to be a cog in the conspiratorial wheel of a well-organized cyber fraud syndicate, whereby the complainant was allegedly duped of his hard-earned money amounting to approximately 40,52,210.59 ₹ , this Court is of the considered view that the matter warrants a thorough, fair and effective investigation. The material available on record, at this stage, prima facie indicates that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative to unearth the complete money trail, identify the other members of the criminal conspiracy, ascertain the modus operandi adopted by the cyber fraud syndicate, trace the proceeds of crime, and identify other unsuspecting victims who may have fallen prey to the fraudulent design allegedly orchestrated by the accused persons. The investigation is still at a crucial stage and any protection from arrest at this juncture is likely to impede the investigation and frustrate the efforts of the investigating agency in unearthing the larger conspiracy. 8.1. In view of the foregoing circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice either side during the course of investigation or trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21712-2026 (O&M) -:6:- grant of the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 9. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 16.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.17 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document