The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a 23-year-old accused in a ₹6.8 crore cyber fraud case, emphasizing that custodial interrogation remains indispensable when investigating organized digital financial crimes. The judgment reinforces judicial caution in bail matters involving systemic threats to digital trust and public financial security.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Aayush Malhotra, seeks anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with FIR No. 167 dated 25.06.2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, NIT Faridabad. The FIR pertains to a sophisticated cyber fraud scheme targeting Sushma Bhatia, a resident of Faridabad, who received a fraudulent call on 16.06.2025 from a person impersonating a CID Inspector from the Mumbai Crime Branch. The caller falsely informed her that she was under "digital arrest" in connection with the Naresh Goyal Jet Airways money laundering case, demanded ₹6,80,00,000 as settlement, and threatened further proceedings via WhatsApp video calls involving senior officers and a judge. The complainant and her husband escaped the situation on 16.06.2025 at approximately 08:00 AM and lodged the complaint with the Cyber Crime Police Station.
Key Facts
- The alleged fraud involved impersonation of law enforcement officials and fabrication of judicial proceedings
- The complainant was threatened with formal arrest orders and financial penalties totaling ₹6.80 crores
- The fraud was executed through voice calls and video calls using spoofed numbers and digital manipulation
- No direct allegations against the petitioner are contained in the FIR
- The petitioner’s name emerged during investigation through disclosure statements of co-accused
- No recovery of money, electronic devices, bank records, or digital evidence has been made from the petitioner
- The petitioner is 23 years old and has no prior criminal record
- The investigation is ongoing; charge sheet has not yet been filed
- Co-accused have been granted regular bail by this Court on 10.02.2026
Procedural History
- 16.06.2025: Complainant Sushma Bhatia subjected to cyber fraud
- 25.06.2025: FIR No. 167 registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, NIT Faridabad
- 02.04.2026: Petition under Section 482 BNSS filed for anticipatory bail
- 02.04.2026: Hearing conducted and judgment delivered on the same day
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner is not named in the FIR
- His involvement is based solely on inadmissible disclosure statements of co-accused
- No recovery, financial link, or electronic evidence connects him to the fraud
- He has no role in operating bank accounts or facilitating transactions
- Co-accused have already been granted regular bail
- Investigation is complete; custodial interrogation is unnecessary
- Granting bail will not impede investigation as he undertakes full cooperation
- His youth and career prospects make incarceration unjustified
For the Respondent/State
- The offence is serious, organized, and involves substantial financial loss
- The petitioner’s name surfaced during investigation as part of a broader conspiracy
- Disclosure statements, though not admissible as evidence, are valid investigative leads
- Custodial interrogation is essential to identify co-conspirators and recover proceeds
- Cyber fraud erodes public trust in digital financial systems
- Granting anticipatory bail at this stage risks evidence tampering and witness influence
- The nature of the crime demands strict judicial oversight
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail to prevent arrest in connection with offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2), and 238 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and to avoid custodial interrogation pending completion of investigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail can be denied solely on the basis of a petitioner’s indirect involvement in a serious cyber fraud case, where no direct allegations are made in the FIR, but his name emerges through disclosure statements of co-accused during an ongoing investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle that anticipatory bail must be granted where no prima facie case is made out against the accused. He argued that the absence of any direct allegation in the FIR, lack of recovery, and non-involvement in financial transactions rendered the petitioner’s arrest unjustified. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to emphasize that arrest should not be automatic and that bail should be the norm. He further contended that since co-accused had already been granted regular bail and the charge sheet was prepared, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was redundant.
For the Respondent
The State contended that cyber fraud of this magnitude - targeting multiple victims through impersonation and digital manipulation - constitutes a grave threat to public trust in financial systems. It argued that disclosure statements, though not admissible as evidence, serve as critical investigative tools to trace conspiracies. The State emphasized that the petitioner’s role, though not explicitly stated in the FIR, was integral to the modus operandi, and that his release would jeopardize the investigation’s integrity. It relied on State v. Anil Sharma to assert that custodial interrogation is indispensable in complex financial crimes.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous evaluation of the nature of the offence, the stage of investigation, and the societal implications of cyber fraud. It acknowledged that while the petitioner is not named in the FIR, his name surfaced during investigation through disclosure statements of co-accused, which, though not admissible as evidence, are legitimate investigative leads under Section 482 BNSS.
"The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is based solely on disclosure statements cannot be accepted at this stage, as the investigation is still underway and the role of each accused is required to be examined in the context of the larger conspiracy."
The Court rejected the plea of parity, noting that the role attributed to the petitioner was distinct from that of co-accused who had already been granted bail. It emphasized that the offence involved ₹6.80 crores, impersonation of judicial and law enforcement authorities, and systemic manipulation of digital platforms - factors that elevate the gravity beyond ordinary fraud.
The Court further held that cybercrimes of this nature are not isolated incidents but operate as "silent viruses," eroding public confidence in digital transactions and threatening the foundations of "Digital Bharat." It cited State v. Anil Sharma to affirm that custodial interrogation is qualitatively superior in complex financial cases, as suspects insulated by pre-arrest bail may render questioning ineffective.
"Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases."
The Court concluded that at this stage, the material collected prima facie establishes a reasonable nexus between the petitioner and the conspiracy. Granting anticipatory bail would impede the investigation’s ability to uncover the full network of offenders and recover the siphoned funds.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Custodial interrogation is deemed essential to unravel the broader conspiracy, identify co-conspirators, and recover the defrauded amount of ₹6.80 crores. The petitioner shall remain subject to arrest upon completion of investigation. No interim protection is granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodial Interrogation Trumps Formal Naming in Cyber Fraud
- Practitioners must now argue that even if an accused is not named in the FIR, emergence through disclosure statements during investigation justifies custodial interrogation
- Absence of direct allegations or recovery does not automatically entitle an accused to anticipatory bail in organized cyber fraud
- Disclosure statements, though inadmissible as evidence, are valid investigative triggers under BNSS
Gravity of Cybercrime Overrides Procedural Technicalities
- Courts will prioritize societal impact over technicalities in cyber fraud cases involving large sums
- The erosion of trust in digital financial systems is now a recognized legal factor in bail jurisprudence
- Cases involving impersonation of officials, fabricated judicial orders, or digital coercion will face heightened judicial scrutiny
Parity in Bail Grants Is Not Automatic
- Granting bail to co-accused does not create a right to similar relief for others
- Each accused’s role must be assessed independently, even if charges are similar
- The Court may distinguish roles based on investigative findings, even without formal charges
