₹73 Lakh Cyber Fraud Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Alleged Account Operator
Case Name: Hemant Kumar Meena v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 09 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-62501-2025
Bench: Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to an accused allegedly involved in a cyber fraud of ₹73 lakhs, holding that the investigation revealed his active role in arranging bank accounts and routing the defrauded money. The Court observed that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover bank kits and trace the flow of funds.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 15 dated 13.03.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Cyber Crime, Panchkula.
The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint made by Gagan Anand alleging that he had been cheated through a cyber fraud scheme involving multiple accused persons. According to the prosecution, the complainant suffered a wrongful loss of approximately ₹73 lakhs as the money was transferred from his account into bank accounts opened and operated by the accused persons.
The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that he was not named in the FIR. His name surfaced only through the disclosure statement of co-accused Jai Prakash. It was argued that such disclosure statements have no evidentiary value in law and cannot be the sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The petitioner further asserted that there was no direct or indirect evidence connecting him with the alleged fraud and that none of the defrauded amount had been credited into his bank account.
It was also submitted that the prosecution had linked the petitioner with the offence merely because a Wi-Fi connection allegedly used in the commission of the crime was associated with him, even though such internet connections could be accessed by multiple users. The petitioner claimed that he had no relationship or dealings with the complainant and that no recovery was required from him. On these grounds, he sought anticipatory bail and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
The petitioner also invoked the principle of parity, arguing that several co-accused persons—including Vandana Pokharel, Latuer Singh Meena, Jai Prakash, Vikas Kumar Meena, Bharat Pareek and Sunil Sharma—had already been granted bail by competent courts. Therefore, he contended that his case stood on a better footing.
Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the allegations involved a well-planned cyber fraud causing wrongful loss of around ₹73 lakhs. During the investigation, documents such as call detail records, bank statements and IP logs were examined. According to the disclosure statements of co-accused persons, the petitioner had actively participated in the conspiracy by opening bank accounts, arranging bank kits and facilitating deposits and withdrawals of the defrauded money.
The State further contended that certain recoveries including bank kits and other material were still to be effected from the petitioner and that he was technically well-versed, raising the possibility that he might tamper with electronic evidence or influence witnesses if granted anticipatory bail. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that two other FIRs had been registered against the petitioner in Rajasthan and Haryana relating to similar offences.
After considering the submissions and examining the record, the High Court held that the allegations involved a serious cyber fraud and that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicated the petitioner’s involvement in the conspiracy. The Court observed that the petitioner allegedly played an active role in opening and operating bank accounts and using ATM cards, cheque books and bank kits to transfer the defrauded amount.
The Court further noted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to recover the bank kits and other incriminating material and to trace the flow of the defrauded money as well as uncover the larger conspiracy behind the fraud.
The Court also rejected the plea of parity, observing that the role attributed to the petitioner was distinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, holding that no ground was made out for granting the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the requirement of custodial interrogation.