Punjab and Haryana High Court says ‘silent virus’, denies relief to 23-year-old in Rs 6.80 crore ‘digital arrest’ case

Justice Sumeet Goel said that the gravity of the offence, involving organised cybercrime and financial deceit, necessitates a thorough investigation.

“The proliferation of online fraud and cybercrimes poses a significant threat, as it systematically erodes public confidence in digital financial transaction platforms. Such erosion runs counter to the aspirations of an advanced and digitally empowered “Digital Bharat” and thus warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection,” the court observed.

Serious economic offence: court

The order noted that the allegations against the petitioner pertained to cyber fraud involving Rs 6.80 crore, and though he was not named in the FIR, the case prima facie showed his nexus with the co-accused persons and the alleged transactions.

The nature and gravity of the offence, involving organised cybercrime and financial deceit, necessitate a thorough investigation, which, at this stage, cannot be conducted without the petitioner being in custody, the court added. 

“Paramount among these is the inherent gravity and seriousness of the offence, coupled with its potential societal ramifications. The proliferation of online fraud and cybercrimes poses a significant threat, as it systematically erodes public confidence in digital financial transaction platforms.” 

The order said that “such transgressions” couldn’t be understated.

“They not only jeopardise the financial security and trust reposed by individuals in financial payment gateways and platforms but also inherently expose the broader populace to analogous threats,” the court said.

Given the inherent nature, profound gravity, and wide-ranging cascading effects on both society and financial institutions, the court was disinclined to grant anticipatory bail.

“To do otherwise would be to turn a Nelson’s eye to the profound and far-reaching detrimental impact of these digital depredations,” it noted.

Arguments 

Representing the petitioner, senior advocate Aman Pal, submitted that his client was not named as an accused in the FIR; however, there were no direct allegations made against him. 

The counsel argued that his name had surfaced during the investigation based on the statement of a co-accused, which was inadmissible in evidence and could not form the sole basis for his implication.

It was contended that there was no recovery from the petitioner, nor any financial, electronic, or documentary material available with the prosecution linking him with the alleged offence.

It was iterated that since the co-accused had already been granted the concession of regular bail by this court on February 10, 2026, and the challan against the co-accused/main accused already stands presented, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 

The counsel further referred to the young age of his client to argue that incarceration would cause “irreversible damage” to his future. He was ready and willing to join the investigation and undertakes to fully cooperate with the investigating agency, Pal added. 

Cheated innocent persons

Senior Deputy Advocate General, Mahima Yahspal Singla, representing the state, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner was serious in nature.

It was argued that the petitioner was actively involved in a serious and well-organised offence relating to cyber fraud, wherein innocent persons had been cheated of substantial amounts of money through fraudulent means.

Although the petitioner is not named in the FIR, his name had surfaced from the disclosure statements of the co-accused, and custodial interrogation was essential to unravel the broader conspiracy, identify the co-conspirators, and recover the defrauded amount. 

It was emphasised that the complexity of the cyber financial fraud involved, asserting that releasing the petitioner on bail at this crucial stage may hamper the ongoing investigation, as he potentially leads to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 

Background

• On June 16, 2025,  the complainant received a call on her mobile phone from a person who claimed to be a CID Inspector from the Mumbai Crime Branch and falsely informed her that she had been arrested. 
• She later received a video call on her mobile phone when a person posing as a police officer informed her that she was an accused in the money laundering case and that she had been placed under ‘house arrest/digital arrest.’ 
• She was further threatened that formal orders would be issued and that she would have to pay an amount of Rs 6.80 crore in connection with the said case. 
• She was also threatened that further proceedings would be conducted through WhatsApp video calls involving senior officers and a judge, and was instructed not to disclose the matter to anyone or leave her house. 
• The complainant and her husband, by playing foul play, managed to leave the house on the pretext of taking a bath at around 8 am and reported the matter to the concerned Police Station. 
• Upon inquiry, it was revealed that the complainant has been a victim of cyber fraud. 
• On these allegations, an FIR was registered immediately, and an investigation ensued.