Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Bail in Rs 50.30 Lakh Cyber Fraud Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently denied bail to a bank staffer accused of orchestrating a cyber fraud scheme that duped a retired IAS officer of Rs 50.30 lakh. Justice Manisha Batra, presiding over the case, emphasized the growing threat of cybercrime, noting that "every other day, instances come to light where innocent members of the public fall prey to such offences committed by unscrupulous persons." The court's decision, delivered on January 19, 2026, underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the need to protect society from such predatory activities.
Details of the Alleged Cyber Fraud
The petitioner, along with co-accused individuals, is alleged to have targeted the retired IAS officer by impersonating police officials. They falsely claimed that the officer was involved in money laundering cases and that arrest warrants had been issued against him. Through a series of phone calls, the accused induced the victim to transfer Rs 51.30 lakh into various bank accounts. The petitioner reportedly purchased a SIM card under a woman's name to facilitate these calls, further concealing his involvement.
Investigations revealed that the petitioner, who worked in the sales department of Bandhan Bank, allegedly recruited co-accused individuals to provide bank accounts for the fraud. An amount of Rs 17 lakh was transferred to one co-accused's account, with the petitioner receiving Rs 5 lakh from the illicit funds. The petitioner was arrested in August 2025 with a mobile phone and later admitted to his role in the crime.
Court's Reasoning for Bail Denial
Justice Batra found that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and establish a prima facie case. The court expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner might abscond or commit similar offenses, given the nature of the cyber fraud. Additionally, there was no evidence to suggest undue delay in the trial's conclusion. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the potential sentence upon conviction, and the overall circumstances, the court held that the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage.
Arguments Presented by Both Sides
Defense Arguments: Advocate Salman Ahmed, representing the petitioner, argued that his client has been falsely implicated and has clean antecedents. He highlighted that the petitioner has been in custody since May 2025, was not named in the initial FIR, and no money was directly transferred to his bank account. Ahmed also noted that the investigation is complete and his client is not required for further probes, suggesting that bail should be granted as the trial might take considerable time.
Prosecution Arguments: Additional Advocate General Neeraj Poswal countered that the petitioner was an active participant in the cyber fraud, causing a wrongful loss of Rs 51.30 lakh to the victim. He emphasized that the duped amount has not been recovered and opposed bail, fearing the petitioner might commit similar offenses if released.
Broader Context of Cyber Fraud in India
This case highlights a disturbing trend of cyber fraud targeting vulnerable individuals, including senior citizens and retired officials. In an unrelated incident, a 73-year-old Chandigarh resident was coerced into transferring Rs 52 lakh after cybercriminals threatened him with arrest in a fictitious case, even conducting a fake courtroom video call. Such "digital arrest" scams have prompted courts and authorities to issue directives for increased vigilance and prompt reporting of suspicious activities.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court's firm stance in this case serves as a warning to cybercriminals and a reassurance to the public that the judiciary is taking strong measures to combat digital crimes. As cyber fraud continues to evolve, legal frameworks and enforcement actions are crucial in safeguarding citizens from financial and emotional exploitation.
