Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Regular Bail in Large-Scale Cyber Fraud Case; Notes Pattern of Offending and Public Harm
Case Name: Sarafuddin Ayub Sheikh vs. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-42544-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking regular bail, holding that the allegations disclosed a large-scale cyber fraud scheme and that the petitioner’s role, as reflected in the investigation and custody record, indicated repeated involvement in similar offences across multiple jurisdictions. The Court observed that cyber fraud cases affect public confidence in digital financial systems and carry systemic societal implications beyond individual monetary loss. Given the gravity of allegations, magnitude of fraud, pendency of multiple similar cases, and the fact that prime prosecution witnesses were yet to testify, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail.
Summary: The FIR alleged that the complainant was induced via WhatsApp to join an online trading group titled “Sinha Wealth Institute M 100,” where false promises of profit from IPOs and share market trading were made. The complaint stated that the petitioner and others induced the complainant to transfer ₹17.50 lakhs into various bank accounts after showing fabricated digital profits and later demanded additional payment as supposed “income tax” before withdrawal.
The State, relying on the affidavit and custody certificate submitted that the petitioner had opened a bank account under the name “Belpada Chicken Shop” using forged documents and received ₹30,000 as commission. It further pointed out that, according to records on the national cyber platform, more than 45 complaints were linked to the same bank account, through which fraud amounting to approximately ₹8.02 crore was processed. The State also submitted details of multiple FIRs pending against the petitioner in different States under offences involving cheating, forgery and cybercrime.
The defence argued that the case against the petitioner was based only on disclosure statements, which were inadmissible, and that no recovery was pending and the account in question stood frozen. It was contended that no useful purpose would be served by further custody and that the petitioner was eligible for bail on parity and delay grounds.
Decision: The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the seriousness of cybercrime, its borderless nature, and potential to damage public trust in digital banking required a cautious judicial approach. The Court noted that the petitioner was a habitual offender based on multiple similar pending cases, and that releasing him on bail risked interference with the investigation and trial. It was also noted that none of the 16 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. The Court therefore declined to exercise discretion in favour of bail and clarified that no observation in the order shall prejudice the merits of trial.