Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Regular Bail in Large-Scale Cyber Fraud Targeting Retired IAS Officer; Notes Active Facilitation and Receipt of Proceeds
Case Name: Sangram Singh Juvaan Singh Raulji v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 19 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-63633-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that regular bail cannot be granted in a serious cyber fraud case where the material on record prima facie shows active facilitation of the offence, sale of bank accounts for commission, and receipt of a substantial portion of the cheated amount. The Court held that economic offences involving organised cybercrime require a strict approach at the stage of bail.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No.198 dated 22.07.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 241, 204 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Cyber Crime South, District Gurugram.
The FIR was registered on the complaint of Abhik Ghosh, a retired IAS officer, who alleged that he was duped of ₹51,30,000 by unknown persons impersonating police officials and threatening him with false implication in money laundering cases. The amount was transferred into different bank accounts controlled by the accused persons.
During investigation, it surfaced that SIM cards used in the commission of the fraud were procured through a POS vendor, and multiple beneficiary bank accounts were arranged to receive the cheated money. One such account, in the name of co-accused Gohil Ajay Bhai, received approximately ₹17 lakhs. The investigation revealed that the present petitioner had induced the co-accused to sell his bank account for commission and had assisted in withdrawal of the amount. It was further disclosed that ₹5 lakhs out of the cheated money was paid to the petitioner.
The petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2025 and a mobile phone was recovered from his possession. He suffered a disclosure statement admitting his role in facilitating the offence. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner had earlier worked in the sales department of a bank and had leveraged his knowledge to aid the cyber fraud syndicate. The cheated amount was yet to be fully recovered.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that no money was recovered from him, and that the case was based on disclosure statements of co-accused. It was further argued that he was in custody for a considerable period and that trial would take time.
The State opposed the bail plea, contending that the petitioner played an active role in facilitating the crime, that a portion of the cheated amount was received by him, and that the offence involved a well-organised cyber fraud targeting a senior citizen.
The Court, after considering the material on record, held that the allegations disclose active complicity of the petitioner and that economic offences of such magnitude warrant a cautious approach. The Court found no ground to extend the concession of regular bail at this stage.
Decision: The bail petition was dismissed.