Anticipatory Bail Denied in ₹6.8 Crore Cyber Fraud Case; Custodial Interrogation Essential to Unravel Digital Crime Network: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Aayush Malhotra v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 02 April 2026
Citation: CRM-M-17541-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in serious cyber fraud cases involving large-scale financial deception, particularly where custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the modus operandi, identify co-conspirators, and recover defrauded amounts.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in an FIR registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to a large-scale cyber fraud of ₹6.8 crores. The complainant was deceived through a “digital arrest” scam, wherein fraudsters impersonated law enforcement officials and coerced her into believing she was involved in a money laundering case.
The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR and was implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible in evidence. It was further contended that no recovery had been made from him, no direct role was attributed, and co-accused had already been granted bail. The petitioner also emphasized his young age and willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
The State opposed the plea, asserting that the petitioner was part of an organized cybercrime network and that his custodial interrogation was crucial to trace the conspiracy, identify accomplices, and recover the siphoned funds. It was also argued that granting bail could hamper the investigation.
The Court observed that cyber fraud offences are grave in nature and have far-reaching societal consequences, eroding public trust in digital financial systems. It emphasized that such crimes often involve organized networks and affect multiple victims simultaneously. The Court found that the petitioner’s involvement had surfaced during investigation and that prima facie material indicated his nexus with the co-accused.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, holding that the seriousness of the offence, the scale of the fraud, and the requirement of custodial interrogation outweighed the petitioner’s claims. The Court underscored that effective investigation into cybercrime necessitates custody in appropriate cases, especially where the conspiracy is complex and involves multiple actors. It held that granting pre-arrest bail at this stage would impede the investigation and frustrate efforts to uncover the full extent of the criminal network. Accordingly, no relief was granted to the petitioner.