The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when prima facie evidence links an accused to large-scale cyber fraud through active financial participation, particularly where custodial interrogation is essential to unravel the full scheme.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shailendra @ Shailendra Sanket, is accused in FIR No. 47 dated 25.08.2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Kaithal, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case arises from a sophisticated online investment fraud targeting the complainant, Iqbal Singh, who was deceived into transferring Rs. 60,50,000/- through fake SEBI-certified platforms under the guise of stock market trading.
Key Facts
- The complainant received a Facebook advertisement on 06.07.2025 for "Axis Direct," clicked the link, and shared personal details including PAN, Aadhaar, and mobile number.
- On 15.07.2025, the complainant transferred Rs. 102, followed by Rs. 49,905/-, into accounts linked to the fraudsters, believing these were legitimate trading transactions.
- The complainant was shown fake SEBI certificates and transaction confirmations to induce further investments.
- Between 06.07.2025 and 25.07.2025, the complainant transferred a total of Rs. 60,50,000/- across multiple bank accounts.
- The petitioner’s bank account received Rs. 8,50,000/- from these fraudulent transfers.
- Between 21.07.2025 and 25.07.2025, the petitioner’s account recorded transactions totaling Rs. 1.72 Crores.
- No recovery has been made from the petitioner.
- The petitioner claims he is a victim, having lost Rs. 50,045/- from his own account, but has not filed any complaint regarding misuse of his account during the period of transactions.
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record.
Procedural History
- 01.08.2025: First complaint lodged by Iqbal Singh.
- 05.08.2025: Second complaint submitted.
- 25.08.2025: FIR No. 47 registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Kaithal.
- 20.09.2025: Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application.
- 12.03.2026: Present petition filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: Claims he is an innocent victim whose account was misused; no evidence links him to the fraud; no recovery from him; no criminal antecedents.
Respondent’s Position: Prima facie evidence shows the petitioner’s account was actively used to receive and route fraud proceeds; Rs. 8.5 lakh deposited; Rs. 1.72 crore transacted in four days; no complaint filed during the fraud period; belated claim of victimhood is a post-facto defence.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail to prevent arrest in connection with the cyber fraud case.
The Legal Issue
Can anticipatory bail be denied when an accused’s bank account receives substantial proceeds from a cyber fraud, and custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the full network of offenders?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, no direct evidence links him to the fraud, and he suffered a loss of Rs. 50,045/- from his own account. He emphasized the absence of criminal antecedents and the lack of recovery from him. He contended that the allegations are frivolous and that the petitioner should not be subjected to arrest without concrete proof of intent or participation.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel submitted that the petitioner’s bank account received Rs. 8,50,000/- from the fraud proceeds and was used to process Rs. 1.72 Crores in just four days. The account’s transaction pattern indicates active participation in the money-laundering chain. The State argued that the petitioner’s claim of being a victim is belated and unsubstantiated, and that custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the broader conspiracy, including the identities of other conspirators and the source of funds.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 482(1) & (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which governs anticipatory bail, and applied the principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and State v. Anil Sharma. The Court held that while personal liberty is fundamental, it must be balanced against the larger public interest in effective investigation of serious crimes.
"The petitioner is found to be the master mind of the whole offence. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.60,50,000/-, an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was transferred in the bank account of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner has a direct connection with the transactions in question in the offence committed."
The Court noted that the petitioner’s account was not merely a passive recipient but an active node in a high-volume transaction chain. The absence of any complaint from the petitioner during the period of transactions, coupled with the timing of his claim after bail denial, undermined his credibility. The Court emphasized that in cyber fraud cases involving large sums and complex financial trails, custodial interrogation is often indispensable to trace the flow of funds and identify co-conspirators.
The Court further held that the mere assertion of innocence, without corroborative evidence or timely reporting, cannot override the prima facie findings of the investigation. Granting anticipatory bail at this stage would risk witness tampering, destruction of evidence, and obstruction of the probe.
The Verdict
The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner’s involvement, as evidenced by the receipt of Rs. 8,50,000/- and Rs. 1.72 Crores in transactions within a four-day window, establishes prima facie complicity. Custodial interrogation is deemed essential for the continuation of the investigation. The petitioner remains liable for arrest upon completion of the probe.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodial Interrogation Trumps Pre-Arrest Liberty in Financial Cyber Crimes
- Practitioners must now argue that in cases involving large-scale digital fraud with money laundering elements, the mere claim of being a "victim" of account misuse is insufficient to secure anticipatory bail.
- Courts will prioritize investigative integrity over personal liberty when financial accounts show active, high-volume movement of illicit funds.
Timing of Victim Claims Is Critical
- A claim of being a victim must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Delayed assertions after investigation has progressed will be viewed as tactical and unreliable.
- Absence of complaint during the period of fraudulent transactions weakens the defence of innocence.
Bank Account Activity as Evidence of Complicity
-
Receipt of even a portion of fraud proceeds (e.g., Rs. 8.5 lakh out of Rs. 60.5 lakh) coupled with high transaction volume (Rs. 1.72 crore in 4 days) constitutes prima facie evidence of participation.
-
Defence counsel must now anticipate that banks records will be scrutinized for patterns, not just amounts.
-
Always request detailed bank statements and transaction timelines during bail hearings.
-
Do not rely solely on absence of FIR naming; focus on financial trail analysis.
-
Advise clients to report suspected account misuse immediately to police and banks.
