Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Regular Bail in ₹1.15 Crore Cyber Fraud Case; Holds Growing Menace of Digital Crimes Requires Stringent Approach
Case Name: Mohd. Harun alias Mohammad Haroon alias Mohd. Haroon v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 23 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-55357-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that serious allegations of cyber fraud involving large-scale financial loss, multiple pending complaints, and active facilitation through mule bank accounts disentitle the accused from bail at the investigation stage. The Court emphasised that cyber crimes are on the rise and require a stringent judicial approach to deter offenders.
Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 334 dated 12.11.2024 registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Gurugram, for offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 241 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The FIR was registered on a complaint by the informant alleging that he was induced to invest in share trading through the Zerodha App, resulting in a wrongful loss of ₹1,15,40,000 due to a cyber fraud.
During investigation, it emerged that part of the defrauded amount—₹7,55,000—was credited into a bank account operated in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 12.05.2025 and disclosed that he had joined hands with co-accused Deepak Bhatt in committing cyber frauds by registering a firm, M/s MH Enterprises, opening a bank account in its name, procuring a SIM card, and handing over cheque books and banking access to the co-accused in exchange for commission.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated, that investigation qua him stood completed, that the offences were triable by a Magistrate, and that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. It was also submitted that he was already on bail in other cases.
Opposing the bail plea, the State contended that the petitioner was an active participant in the fraud, had facilitated the crime by providing banking infrastructure, and was a habitual offender, being involved in four other criminal cases. It was further pointed out that 28 complaints were pending on the Cyber Crime Portal in relation to the same bank account used by the petitioner. The State apprehended that grant of bail could lead to tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, repetition of similar offences, or absconding.
The High Court, after considering the rival submissions, held that the allegations against the petitioner were grave and revealed a structured modus operandi facilitating cyber fraud. The Court observed that cyber crimes have become a serious and growing menace in the digital age, employing sophisticated methods to target unsuspecting victims, and therefore, leniency at the stage of bail would be misplaced.
Decision: The petition for regular bail was dismissed.