Relaxation of Bail in ₹1.98 Crore Cyber Fraud Declined: P&H High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail Despite Settlement
Case Name: Neeraj Sharma v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 09 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-4401-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in serious cyber fraud cases merely on the basis of a private settlement with the complainant. Where the allegations disclose organised, layered financial transactions through multiple bank accounts and prima facie active participation of the petitioner as a beneficiary, custodial interrogation is justified. Economic offences affecting public trust and the digital financial ecosystem cannot be reduced to private disputes capable of being neutralised through compromise.
Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.342 dated 21.11.2024 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Gurugram, under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
As per the prosecution, the complainant was induced through WhatsApp and Telegram groups to invest in the stock market and transferred ₹1.98 crores into various bank accounts controlled by members of an organised network. During investigation, multiple layers of transactions were unearthed, involving several accused persons whose accounts were allegedly used to siphon and route funds.
Investigation revealed that ₹25 lakhs was transferred on 06.09.2024 into the account of M/s Tirupati Balaji Motors, owned by the petitioner, maintained with Bank of Maharashtra. On the next day, ₹20 lakhs was transferred to another account maintained by him with Central Bank of India and ₹10 lakhs was withdrawn through cheque. The status report asserted that the petitioner was the proprietor of the said concern and had actively operated the accounts.
The petitioner contended that there were no allegations of inducement against him, that he was a bona fide businessman, and that he had entered into a settlement with the complainant. It was further argued that the case was based on documentary evidence and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner was a direct beneficiary of the fraudulent transaction, had withdrawn substantial amounts in cash, and had criminal antecedents including involvement in another cyber fraud case. It was argued that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the modus operandi, identify other participants and recover the duped amount.
The Court observed that the petitioner was specifically a beneficiary in the transaction and that quick withdrawal of large sums reflected conscious awareness of unlawful receipt. It held that a businessman cannot plausibly claim ignorance of substantial credits and withdrawals in his own account. The chain of layered transactions and multiplicity of accounts prima facie indicated the functioning of an organised network.
On the issue of settlement, the Court held that cyber fraud is not akin to a traditional property dispute and cannot be treated as a purely private matter. Referring to the statutory scheme under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the Court emphasised that serious economic offences are not rendered compoundable merely because parties enter into a compromise. The larger public interest and systemic integrity must prevail over individual settlement.
The Court further relied upon the Supreme Court’s observations in Balaji v. Karthik Desari (2024) 19 SCC 625 to reiterate that criminal prosecution is primarily the responsibility of the State and cannot be undermined through private arrangements that dilute public justice. It also noted the Supreme Court’s order in In Re: Victims of Digital Arrests related to Forged Documents (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 03 of 2025), declining bail in digital fraud cases pending completion of investigation.
Concluding that the allegations disclosed serious organised cyber fraud with wider societal ramifications, and that custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the full conspiracy and recover proceeds, the Court declined anticipatory bail.
Decision: The petition seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed.