Cybercrime undermines ‘Digital Bharat’: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies pre-arrest bail in illegal call centre case

Justice Sumeet Goel said the actions of the petitioner directly contribute to creating an infrastructure that was exploited to commit fraud.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the said illegal call centre was defrauding both Indian and foreign nationals through fraudulent calls.

‘Cybercrimes, silent virus’

• The court mentioned that the deleterious consequences of cybercrimes transcend individual boundaries, imperilling numerous unsuspecting citizens.
• It added that the gravity of such transgressions cannot, therefore, be understated.
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court added that 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. 
• It pointed out that cybercrime in our nation operates akin to a silent virus.
• It is insidious, disruptive, and exacting a toll on society that extends far beyond mere pecuniary loss, encompassing the bedrock of trust, security, and national progress. 

‘Serious offence, far-reaching outcomes’

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that cyber fraud coordinated by multiple individuals is a serious offence with far-reaching consequences. 
• It further added that the actions of the petitioner directly contribute to creating an infrastructure that was exploited to commit fraud. 
• The court clarified that the offence of this nature is serious, for which the petitioner’s custodial interrogation may be necessary to determine the extent of his knowledge regarding the fraudulent scheme. 
• His custodial interrogation is also required to know whether he was aware of the misuse and the identities of other co-accused who may have facilitated the offence. 
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined the anticipatory bail, pointing out that granting the same at this stage may hamper the ongoing investigation. 

Illegal call centre bust

It was placed on record before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the First Information Report (FIR) in this regard was based on a complaint made by a police officer who stated that on September 19, 2025, while he was on duty at the police station, he received secret information that an illegal call centre was being operated at a particular place. 

It was further alleged that the said call centre was engaged in cheating and defrauding individuals both within India and abroad, and that if a raid was conducted, the culprits could be apprehended in the act. 

Acting upon the said information, a raiding party was constituted, and a raid was carried out at the premises in question, where 11 individuals were allegedly found engaged in fraudulent calls to foreign nationals using software applications such as EyeBeam and Zoiper. 

During the course of the raid, one of the persons present, namely Rohit Malhotra, disclosed that all 11 individuals were employed at the call centre and the same was being operated by one Nikhil, a resident of Delhi, who had taken the premises on rent and employed the said boys to execute the fraudulent operation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was informed. 

It was further disclosed that under the directions of Nikhil, the employees used to obtain personal and banking details of victims by falsely informing them that narcotic substances had been found in their parcels, and thereafter, such information was used to commit cyber fraud. 

Based on these allegations, the present FIR was registered, and an investigation ensued. During the investigation, apparently, one of the co-accused named the present petitioner. 

‘Not named in FIR’

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Abhinav Gupta reiterated before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the FIR in question, as he was not named in it. 

It was further added that no direct role has been ascribed to the petitioner, and his alleged involvement is solely based upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. 

It was contended that no independent victim has been identified, no specific transaction has been attributed to the petitioner, and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. 

Gupta emphasised that even the bank accounts of the petitioner were investigated and later unfrozen after no suspicious transactions were found. 

‘Large-scale cyber fraud’

Senior Deputy Advocate General Mahima Yashpal Singla opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by contending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the allegations in the present case are grave in nature, involving a large-scale cyber fraud operation targeting innocent persons both in India and abroad. 

Singhla reiterated that the investigation conducted so far has revealed that the petitioner, in connivance with other co-accused, was instrumental in running an illegal call centre in which personal and banking credentials were procured from victims by falsely alleging that narcotic substances had been recovered from parcels sent in their names.