1 CRM-M-37081-2026 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37081-2026 (O&M) Reserved on: 16.07.2026 Pronounced on: 20.07.2026 Uploaded on: 20.07.2026 AISHIK PAL …Petitioner Versus STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH …Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal Argued by: Mr. Awanish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, APP U.T. Chandigarh. *** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 53 dated 07.04.2026 under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Cyber Crime, Sector-17, Chandigarh. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Mankesh Kumar son of Shri Ram, Accountant at Alpha Forex Pvt. Ltd. Company stated that his company had a current account at Sector- 35 Chandigarh, Branch. Sim of the registered mobile number 9316338916 remained with him and he operated it on his phone. On 05.04.2026, he discovered no signal in the company sim and sent an e-mail to Airtel from his Company’s e-mail ID but no response was received. On 06.04.2026, he went to Airtel office Sector-22, Chandigarh to make enquiry and was informed that the sim number was swapped in the name of another person. Upon further inquiry, he was told that the one time password (OTP) had AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.20 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRM-M-37081-2026 (O&M) gone to the registered alternate number 9316338901. The registered alternate number remained with Manager Sarabjeet Singh. He asked Sarabjeet Singh regarding OTP for sim swapped, but he replied in the negative. They checked their system and told him that his sim was swapped and the registered alternate number was 9907281468. Further, that OTP for the sim swapped had gone to this number. He informed them that it was not their alternate number, for which he was asked to contact their Nodal Officer. They sent an e-mail to Airtel Nodal Officer but no reply was received. On 06.04.2026, when they went to Sector 17, ICICI Bank, the server was down. He e-mailed from the registered e-mail ID to home Branch, Sector-35, Chandigarh to get a Debit Freeze applied and asked them for bank statement. On receiving the statement he found ₹81,89,000/- debited from the Company’s account through 18 different unauthorized transactions on 05.04.2026 and 06.04.2026. Legal action was prayed for. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was the Sole Proprietor of M/s. Anvika Traders, a prepaid distributor of Bharti Airtel but had resigned from distributorship on 26.02.2024. Petitioner was innocent and was falsely involved. He was made a scapegoat for non- compliance of DOT instructions by the licensee i.e. Bharti Airtel. Petitioner had not done any business with Bharti Airtel since his resignation on 26.02.2024. Activation of swapped sim card could not be done by the petitioner as he had resigned from the distributorship. Petitioner was being framed on the allegations that he sold mobile number 9907281468 but the police failed to investigate from which ID the same was activated. Petitioner was allowed interim anticipatory bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. However, his application was declined on the AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.20 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRM-M-37081-2026 (O&M) ground of non-cooperation and non-production of record relating to the sim number 9907281468. In fact, Bharti Airtel Limited was misleading the entire investigation. Airtel employees were hand in glove with cyber criminals. DOT instructions were not being followed. Petitioner, thus, deserved to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to resignation letter Annexure P-4, addressed to Bharti Airtel Ltd. and a correspondence e-mail received from Bharti Airtel that they were unable to fetch any details in respect of mobile number 9907281468. The State of UT Chandigarh was directed to verify the genuineness of Annexures P-4 and P-11. 5. Learned State counsel submits that as per e-mail received from Bharti Airtel regarding details of Anvika Traders, it was informed that M/s. Anvika Traders, Barrackpore resigned on 03.07.2026 at 10.36 AM. Further, that as per available records, sim bearing serial number 8991000920999824247U was billed to M/s. Anvika Traders, Barrackpore, Kolkata on 20.10.2023. Learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the application for pre-arrest bail arguing that allegations against the petitioner were of serious nature and his custodial interrogation was essential to trace out the co-accused and to conduct investigation in effective manner. Moreover, he failed to comply with the directions of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh after grant of interim anticipatory bail and failed to provide record belonging to disputed sim which was sold through him. He also tried to mislead the Court by claiming resignation from the company. 6. There is evidence with the Investigating Agency that the disputed sim card which was swapped with the sim of the complainant was AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.20 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRM-M-37081-2026 (O&M) sold by petitioner. The petitioner was earlier granted interim anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and was directed to join investigation but he failed to make over record of sale of the sim to the Investigating Agency. Considering the magnitude of the crime, vide which a sum of Rs. ₹81,89,000/- was siphoned off from the account of the Company through 18 different unauthorized transactions dated 05.04.2026 and 06.04.2026, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative to trace the co-accused and to discover the modus operandi. Grant of anticipatory bail at this juncture would seriously impede the process of investigation. Considering the nature of offence, the gravity thereof, documents on record and the role attributed to the petitioner, there are no extraordinary grounds to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. The petition stands dismissed. 8. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.20 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document