1 CRM-M-37591-2026 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37591-2026 (O&M) Reserved on: 23.07.2026 Pronounced on: 28.07.2026 Uploaded on: 29.07.2026 JAGTAR SINGH @ JORA …Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal Present: Mr. Abhaysher Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG Punjab. SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. 1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 005 dated 07.02.2026 under Sections 318(4), 61(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime, Khanna, District Ludhiana. This is the first petition for regular bail. 2. Arun Lata wife of Sanjeev Kalia reported to the police that on 18.02.2025, one Munish Chaudhary contacted her daughter Navdha Kalia on social media Instagram ID representing that he lived in California (USA) and was in gold business. Thereafter, her daughter started talking to him on his whatsapp number. Said Munish Chaudhary proposed marriage with her daughter saying that his parents died in a road accident in 2024 and asked for her parents phone number. He took her Dubai address on the pretext of giving her two gold sets, a diamond ring, two iPhone 16 Pro Max, 3 Apple watches, 18 bangles, cosmetic items and said he was sending dresses, AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CRM-M-37591-2026 (O&M) shoes and 10000 pounds through courier. Her daughter, however, refused for the articles and money and returned to India on 15.08.2025. On 16.08.2025, she again received a call through whatsapp number. The caller introduced himself as Manoj Kumar speaking from the Airport at Abu Dhabi from DHL courier service and stated that there was a courier for her, asked her to confirm her address and pay custom duty of 1200 dirhams for delivery of the courier in 3-4 hours. Her daughter asked him to send the courier back and blocked the phone number as she did not order the parcel. After some time, she again received a video and a voice note on her whatsapp number. In that video, some police personnel were arresting a girl and the voice note said that the girl was also not paying custom duty and she would be arrested in the same manner in Dubai or Dubai police would shoot her. She and her daughter were put in fear. Munish called her again to accept the parcel. On 17.08.2025, she received another whatsapp call from Manoj asking her to pay ₹27,000/- to ₹28,000/- for receiving her parcel or else face legal action. Out of fear, she deposited ₹15,000/- from her daughter’s bank account on the QR code sent by him. The next day, saying that penalty had been imposed, another sum of ₹12,000/- was demanded, which was sent through different QR code scanner. Again threats were extended and till 2025, ₹7,60,000/- was sent by the complainant and her daughter through different QR codes and Bank Accounts sent by the said persons on various dates. Later, those persons contacted her and her daughter through various mobile numbers and whatsapp calls and induced them to deposit huge sums of money in various bank accounts for which complainant also took a loan of ₹1,46,000/-. They were told that FIR was registered against all 04 of them, complainant, her daughter, Manoj Kumar and Munish Chaudhary and AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CRM-M-37591-2026 (O&M) complainant was repeatedly induced to deposit money in different bank accounts by making false representations in the name of custom authorities, police officers, IPS officers and even a judge of the High Court. Complainant and her daughter were threatened with registration of criminal cases, arrest by police authorities, circulation of objectionable chats and videos and threats to their lives were also extended. Under continuous pressure, deception, blackmail and intimidation, they transferred a total sum of ₹15,00,000/- in various bank accounts through QR codes on different dates. The culprits, however, neither delivered the parcels, nor returned the money, thereby cheating the complainant and causing wrongful loss to her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation in the case was complete. Petitioner had clean antecedents. He was in judicial custody for the last more than 04 months. The only evidence against him was disclosure statement of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh claiming that he paid commission of 10% to petitioner on every transaction. The disclosure statement was inadmissible in evidence. There was no money received in account of the petitioner and his involvement in commission of offence was not made out. He further submits that a compromise was reached with the complainant and she had no objection to grant of bail to the petitioner. Petitioner was thus entitled to be release on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail submitting that sufficient evidence was collected against the petitioner, who was closely associated with Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh co- accused. As per disclosure made by Arshdeep Singh, PNB account, SBI account, Union Bank of India Account, ATM and pin numbers were given to the petitioner, his close associate, who operated his bank accounts for AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CRM-M-37591-2026 (O&M) receiving the proceeds of the cyber fraud and after withdrawal of the amounts, used to pay him commission. Petitioner, similarly, made disclosure statement. Even though, challan had been forwarded, co-accused namely Pankaj Kumar Jha and Munish Chaudhary were still absconding and were yet to be apprehended. In case of release on regular bail, there was every likelihood that the petitioner may influence the witnesses, tamper the ongoing investigation. It was thus prayed that prayer for regular bail be refused. 4. The facts to be considered in an application for grant of bail are: (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) Nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) Likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280) 5. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280) 5. Though bail is the rule, the case against the petitioner is of exceptional character. Allegations against the petitioner are, by no means trivial. The FIR discloses a repeated saga of deceitfully inducing the complainant and her daughter to part with large sums of money and transfer the same through QR codes to various bank accounts, in the name of courier officials, custom authorities, police officials and judges, over a period of AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CRM-M-37591-2026 (O&M) several months indicating use of digital platform resulting in substantial financial losses. In crimes such as the present one, which are increasingly on the rise, the Courts are required to exercise greater caution as there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused may tamper with the electronic and other evidence, influence witnesses and dissipate proceeds of the crime. There is high probability of the petitioner continuing similar unlawful activities and repeating similar offence once enlarged on bail and considering the serious nature of allegations, complexity of the investigation and impact of such offences on the society, there are sufficient grounds to deny the concession of bail to the petitioner. The petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 6. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion on merits of the case. 7. Pending CRM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 28.07.2026 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.29 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document