Cambodia Link, 500+ SIM Cards & VOIP Gateways: P&H High Court Denies Bail in ₹78 Lakh Cyber Fraud Case
Case Name: Anikant Bhatt v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 24 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-70793-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where material on record prima facie indicates active and integral involvement of an accused in an organised and cross-border cyber fraud racket through procurement and supply of SIM cards, facilitation of VOIP-based operations, and financial transactions no case for grant of regular bail is made out. The seriousness of organised cyber fraud and its growing menace warrants a strict approach at the stage of bail.
Summary: The petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 61 dated 08.09.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 42(3) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 at Police Station Cyber Crime, Kurukshetra.
The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Balkishan Attri alleging that he was duped of ₹78,85,000/- in a digital/cyber fraud. He was initially induced on the pretext of issuance of a credit card of ₹1 lakh from State Bank of India and was thereafter threatened with allegations of money laundering linked to his Aadhaar card.
During investigation, call detail records and telecom subscriber data revealed that fraudulent communications were linked to mobile number 91798-18415 registered in the name of Vinod Bhatt. Investigation disclosed that the said number was being used by the present petitioner, son of Vinod Bhatt. The petitioner was found to have used multiple SIM cards and devices for facilitating cyber fraud operations and was arrested on 14.09.2025.
In his disclosure statement, the petitioner stated that he had travelled to Cambodia and Thailand and had come into contact with members of an organised international cyber fraud syndicate operating under the name “GPK Internationals”. He was allegedly recruited through social media and instructed to procure SIM cards in India and supply them to syndicate members for VOIP-based calling operations.
He further disclosed that he had procured 500 to 550 SIM cards through co-accused Akash Chaurasiya and others, provided OTP verification and activation support, and received payments for facilitating cyber fraud operations. Recoveries included one VOIP system with five GSM VOIP gateway machines capable of operating multiple SIM cards simultaneously, several SIM cards, four mobile phones, one laptop, a CP Plus surveillance camera, Jio and Airtel routers, and his passport bearing immigration stamps confirming visits to Cambodia and Thailand. Investigation also revealed receipt of ₹2,50,000/- in his bank account from co-conspirators. Investigation stands completed and trial has commenced.
The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, that the recoveries were not connected with the subject offence, that mandatory procedure was not followed at the time of arrest, and that he had clean antecedents. It was argued that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner played an active and pivotal role as a link between an international cyber fraud syndicate and its Indian operations. Given the organised and cross-border nature of the offence, there were chances of absconding or repetition of similar offences if released on bail.
The High Court observed that the material collected during investigation i.e. call detail records, subscriber information, recoveries of VOIP gateway machines, SIM cards, electronic devices, bank account trail, and passport entries prima facie indicated conscious participation of the petitioner in facilitating cyber fraud operations. His role was not peripheral but appeared integral to execution of the offence.
The Court further noted the alarming rise of organised cyber fraud exploiting technological advancements, causing severe financial loss and psychological distress, and eroding public confidence in digital systems. Given the seriousness of allegations, organised and cross-border character of the crime, and absence of undue delay in trial, no ground for grant of regular bail was made out at this stage.
Decision: The petition for regular bail was dismissed. It was clarified that observations made in the order shall not influence the trial on merits.