‘Can’t ignore magnitude’: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail to bank official in Rs 3 crore ‘digital arrest’ scam

Justice Manisha Batra noted that the allegations disclose active and prima facie participation of the petitioner in the crime. (Image enhanced using AI)

“It is also a matter of concern that such offences are on the rise and innocent members of the public are being increasingly targeted and deprived of their hard-earned money through sophisticated means,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court said on March 20.

While dismissing the bail plea, the order noted that the role attributed to the petitioner indicates his involvement in the operational execution of a well-organised cyber fraud racket, wherein a retired woman was duped of a substantial amount by keeping her under so-called “digital arrest” and inducing her to transfer huge sums of money.

Background

• The matter arises from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on January 31, 2025, at the West Gurugram Cybercrime Police Station, following a complaint by Dr Anita, a retired principal.
• The complainant alleged that callers falsely claimed she was involved in illegal advertising and money laundering.
• She also started receiving video calls from different numbers on her WhatsApp.
• The callers told her that she had opened a bank account in favour of a person accused of money laundering and committing fraud, and she would be sent to jail for 14 years.
• Under the threat of a 14-year prison sentence and freezing of her family’s bank accounts, she was kept under “digital arrest” in her home and coerced into transferring a total of Rs 3.3 crore.
• She was forbidden from disclosing these facts to her family members under the threat that they would also be put in jail, their bank accounts frozen, and they would be mentally and physically tortured.
• During the investigation, it was found that an amount of Rs 62 lakh was transferred from the account of the complainant to the account of one M/s Param Enterprise, and an amount of Rs 9.9 lakh was transferred to an account managed by co-accused Yogesh Sharma.

Petitioner’s alleged role

• The petitioner, Jasvinder, an employee of Kotak Mahindra Bank’s Ladwa branch, was named an accused in the case following disclosure statements from co-accused individuals.
• According to the prosecution, Jasvinder played a pivotal role in the operational execution of the fraud by facilitating the clearance of cheques totalling Rs 10 lakh and receiving commissions from the fraudulent proceeds.
• Specifically, the investigation indicated he coordinated the encashment of a Rs 5 lakh cheque at the bank’s Shahabad branch.

Bank employee’s defence

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Manvinder Singh Dalal and Himanshu Kashyap argued that Jasvinder was not named in the original FIR and was implicated solely based on inadmissible disclosure statements from co-accused persons.
• They contended that as a bank employee, he was merely discharging his official duties, had no criminal history, and that his continued incarceration serves no purpose, as the trial will be lengthy.

State’s stand

• Representing the state, Deputy Attorney General Himani Arora opposed the bail, asserting that the petitioner held a “serious and specific” role in the conspiracy.
• The counsel argued that Jasvinder used his position as a bank official to facilitate the crime and that there was a high risk of his absconding or intimidating witnesses if released.

‘Scale of offence’

• The allegations on record disclose active and prima facie participation of the petitioner in the commission of the crime.
• Though not named in the FIR, he was nominated during the course of the investigation based on disclosure statements and other material collected by the investigating agency.
• He is specifically alleged to have participated in the conspiracy by presenting a cheque of Rs 5 lakh at the Shahabad branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank, getting the same encashed, and thereafter receiving commission as well as part of the proceeds of the fraudulent transactions.
• The magnitude of the amount involved, the organised manner in which the offence has been carried out, and the role of the petitioner in facilitating the withdrawal of the defrauded money, prima facie, reflect the seriousness of the allegations.
• The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner may abscond or indulge in similar activities, if released on bail, cannot be said to be unfounded at this stage.