Cyber Fraud Destabilises Economy, Damages Public Exchequer: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Bail Plea
While rejecting bail in a cyber fraud case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that cyber fraud constitutes a sui generis transgression, demanding categorical exclusion from judicial indulgence in bail matters, given its capacity to erode public trust in the digital economy and destabilize financial ecosystems. The Court observed that cybercrime, by design, “thrives on...
While rejecting bail in a cyber fraud case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that cyber fraud constitutes a sui generis transgression, demanding categorical exclusion from judicial indulgence in bail matters, given its capacity to erode public trust in the digital economy and destabilize financial ecosystems.
The Court observed that cybercrime, by design, “thrives on speed, deception and digital manipulation,” requiring judicial responses that are “calibrated, firm and resistant to the evolving ingenuity of offenders.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The contemporary felony of cyber fraud presents a transgression sui generis that mandates its categorical exclusion from the judicial indulgence for granting benefit of regular bail. Digital economy is the unassailable locus of modern commerce, sustained entirely by the bedrock of public trust. Cyber Fraud acts as a corrosive insurgency, causing not merely an isolated pecuniary loss, but an aggravated systemic damage upon the public financial exchequer, thereby inflicting profound in rem detriment."
The judge observed that, "Given its borderless architecture, technological sophistication and capacity to proliferate rapidly across jurisdiction, cyber fraud possess an inherent potential to destabilize economic ecosystem and erode institutional credibility. Owing to the anonymity, trans- border expanse and a propensity of causing substantial adverse impact, a court is compelled to look into the nature of crime, lest it may tantamount to granting judicial imprimatur to an ongoing systemic threat."
Cybercrime, by its very design, thrives on speed, deception and digital manipulation; therefore, judicial response(s) must be equally calibrated, firm and resistant to the evolving ingenuity of such offenders, it added.
These observations were made while dismissing a petition filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail in an FIR registered at Cyber Police Station, Rohtak, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC in connection with a sophisticated online investment scam.
According to the FIR lodged by complainant Rajpal Yadav, he was added to a WhatsApp group titled “Sinha Wealth Institute M 100,” allegedly operated by multiple admins using frequently changing mobile numbers. The prime accused, Nisha Gupta, allegedly induced him to invest in share market schemes through an application named “Wells Pro App.”
The complainant transferred ₹17.5 lakhs between 09.01.2024 and 23.01.2024 after being promised high returns. The accused allegedly displayed a fictitious FII account balance of ₹62 lakhs, and when the complainant attempted withdrawal, they demanded an additional ₹8.2 lakhs as “income tax.” Realizing he had been duped, he approached the police.
The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, with the sole basis of his arrest being disclosure statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible. It was argued that the relevant bank account was already frozen, nothing was to be recovered from him, and continued incarceration would serve no purpose. The defence claimed lack of substantial evidence linking him to the fraud.
Opposing bail, the State submitted that the petitioner, along with others, had cheated the complainant of large sums, and that key prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined.
A custody certificate from Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai revealed that the petitioner had multiple FIRs across the country, indicating a pattern of repeated involvement in cyber and financial crimes. The State argued that releasing him would risk interference with evidence and potential absconding, given the trans-border nature of cyber fraud networks.
Calling cyber fraud “a contemporary felony that mandates denial of regular bail”, the Court stressed that judicial responses must be firm, calibrated, and deterrent.
The Court also noted that 45 complaints had been received concerning the account operated by the petitioner, through which a total fraud of over ₹8 crore was allegedly committed. This, the Court observed, showed a deliberate and habitual pattern of criminal behaviour.
Given the seriousness of allegations, the scale of fraud, multiple FIRs, and the fact that no prosecution witness had been examined yet, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to regular bail.
Mr. Ankit Parti, Advocate and Mr. Prasang Raheja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
Title: Sarafuddin Ayub Sheikh v. State of Haryana