'Cybercrime Akin To Silent Virus': Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Anticipatory Bail To Man Booked In ₹6 Crore Digital Arrest Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that cybercrime in the country "operates akin to a silent virus" which is insidious, disruptive and exacts a toll on society that extends far beyond mere pecuniary loss.
Noting the cascading effects of such offences on society and financial institutions, the court declined anticipatory bail to a 23-year-old man accused in the digital arrest of a woman where she was asked to deposit over Rs. 6 crore.
Justice Sumeet Goel in his order noted:
"...while adjudicating the bail pleas, particularly in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitates a meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors. Paramount among these is the inherent gravity and seriousness of the offence, coupled with its potential societal ramifications. The proliferation of online frauds 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. These offences are characterized by their capacity to aggrieve a multitude of victims simultaneously, often with a single act of commission. The deleterious consequences of cybercrimes transcend individual boundaries, imperiling numerous unsuspecting citizens.
The gravity of such transgressions cannot, therefore, be understated. They not only jeopardize the financial security and trust reposed by individuals in financial payment gateways and platforms but also inherently expose the broader populace to analogous threats. Indeed, cybercrime in our nation operates akin to a silent virus —insidious, disruptive, and exacting a toll on society that extends far beyond mere pecuniary loss, encompassing the bedrock of trust, security, and national progress. Given the inherent nature and profound gravity of such offenses, and their wide-ranging cascading effects on both society and financial institutions, this Court finds itself disinclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed for. To do otherwise would be to turn a Nelson's eye to the profound and far-reaching detrimental impact of these digital depredations".
The court observed that the case pertaining to digital arrest of a woman, contained allegations of a serious economic offence involving cyber fraud against the petitioner involving substantial amounts of ₹6.80 crores.
It said that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR, his involvement has surfaced during the course of investigation, and at this stage, the material collected by the investigating agency "prima facie" indicated his "nexus with the co-accused and the alleged transactions".
The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the case rest solely on disclosure statements of co-accused observing that investigation is still underway and the role of each accused is required to be examined in the context of the larger conspiracy.
It further rejected the petitioner's plea of parity with co-accused out on bail, noting that the role attributed to the petitioner appears to be a specific one.
"The police have further asserted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable for the purpose of effectively unravelling the modus operandi of the accused persons, identifying the broader nexus involved in the fraud, and recovering the siphoned amount. The nature and gravity of the offence, involving organized cybercrime and financial deceit, necessitate a thorough investigation, which, at this stage, cannot be conducted without the petitioner being in custody...At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation," the court held.
Background
The court was hearing a man's plea seeking anticipatory bail after he was booked in an FIR for offences under BNS Sections 318(4)(dishonest misappropriation of propety), 61(2)(Criminal conspiracy), 238(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender).
The FIR alleged that the complainant, a woman who is a resident of Faridabad had stated in her police complaint that on 16.06.2025, she received a call on her mobile from a person who claimed to be a CID Inspector from the Mumbai Crime Branch and falsely informed her that she had been arrested.
Subsequently, she received a video call on her mobile phone wherein a person posing as a police officer informed her that she was an accused in the Naresh Goyal Jet Airways 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.6,80,00,000 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. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband managed to leave the house on the pretext of taking a bath at around 08:00 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.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and the petitioner has not been named as an accused in the FIR and hence there is not direct allegations made against him. It was submitted that he was falsely implicated in the present case, wherein his name surfaced only during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused. It was argued that the same is inadmissible in evidence and cannot form the sole basis for his implication.
It was contended that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner, nor is there any financial, electronic, or documentary material available with the prosecution linking him with the alleged offence. He has further argued that there is no allegation that the petitioner operated any bank account or had any direct nexus with the transactions in question. It was asserted that the petitioner is an innocent individual who has been wrongfully accused of an offence he never committed.
The State argued that offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It was argued that the petitioner was actively involved in a serious and well-organized offence relating to cyber fraud, wherein innocent persons have been cheated of substantial amounts of money through fraudulent means. It was contended that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR, but his name has been surfaced from the disclosure statements of co-accused.
It was argued that custodial interrogation is essential to unravel the broader conspiracy, identify the coconspirators, and recover the defrauded amount. Further considering the complexity of the cyber financial fraud involved, releasing the petitioner on bail at this crucial stage may hamper the ongoing investigation qua him potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing of witnesses.
Observing that the petitioner did not deserve anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case, the court dismissed the petition.
Case title: Aayush Malhotra v/s State of Haryana
CRM-M-17541-2026