The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied regular bail to a petitioner accused in a Rs. 1 crore cyber fraud involving impersonation of government officials and digital coercion, emphasizing that integral participation in an organized racket and repeated criminal antecedents outweigh the presumption of innocence at the bail stage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mohammad Mohsin Siddiqui, is accused in FIR No. 264 dated 17.12.2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Panipat, under Sections 308(2), 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 351(4), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), with additional charges under Sections 238(a) and 241 of BNS. The case arises from a sophisticated cyber fraud targeting complainant Mukesh Kumar Garg.
Key Facts
- On 07.12.2024 at approximately 12:15 PM, the complainant received a fraudulent phone call from mobile number 87094115474, wherein the caller impersonated an official of the Reserve Bank of India and falsely claimed a credit card had been fraudulently issued in his name, alleging a fraud of Rs. 2 crores.
- On 08.12.2024 at 10:09 PM, the complainant received a WhatsApp video call from mobile number 918543982626, wherein the caller impersonated an officer of the Mumbai Police and declared the complainant was under "digital arrest" for the alleged fraud.
- The complainant was subjected to continuous video surveillance for 11 hours and 37 minutes, during which threats were made to his life and family unless Rs. 1 crore was paid.
- A forged document bearing the National Emblem, purportedly issued by the Mumbai Police, was sent to lend credibility to the threats.
- Under duress, the complainant transferred Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in three installments:
- Rs. 65,00,000/- on 08.12.2024 via RTGS from Indian Bank to DBS Bank account No. 8858210000006514
- Rs. 23,00,000/- on 12.12.2024 via RTGS from PNB to IndusInd Bank account No. 259601615856
- Rs. 12,00,000/- on 16.12.2024 via RTGS to ICICI Bank account No. 186905001629
- Between 07.12.2024 and 16.12.2024, the complainant received further WhatsApp video calls from numbers 918543982626 and 919057758801, with callers impersonating officials of the Enforcement Directorate.
- The complainant reported the incident to the cyber helpline (1930) and filed an online complaint bearing No. 31312240068089.
- Investigation revealed that the DBS Bank account used to receive Rs. 65,00,000/- was opened in the name of Mohit Kumar, whose identity was fraudulently used.
- Mohit Kumar lodged an FIR (No. 374 dated 11.12.2024) at Cyber Crime Police Station, Gurugram, against Tipu Sultan, a Bank Relation Manager at DBS Bank, Gurugram, for forging his signature and misusing his account.
- Tipu Sultan, already in custody in another case, was arrested in this case on 09.01.2025. He disclosed that the petitioner, Mohammad Mohsin Siddiqui, had forged Mohit Kumar’s signature on bank updation forms and supplied them to him.
- The petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2025. Co-accused Prakash Chaudhary was arrested on 15.01.2025.
- Both the petitioner and co-accused submitted disclosure statements admitting involvement.
- The petitioner admitted to forging signatures on bank updation forms and providing them to Tipu Sultan, enabling the transfer of Rs. 65,00,000/- from the complainant’s account.
- Multiple other individuals were named as accused based on call records and fund trails.
- The investigation is complete and the challan has been filed.
Procedural History
- 07.12.2024: First fraudulent call received by complainant
- 08.12.2024: First transfer of Rs. 65,00,000/-; initiation of digital arrest
- 11.12.2024: Mohit Kumar files FIR No. 374 at Gurugram Cyber Crime
- 12.12.2024: Second transfer of Rs. 23,00,000/-
- 15.12.2024: Third transfer of Rs. 12,00,000/-
- 16.12.2024: Final transfer; end of fraud period
- 17.12.2024: FIR No. 264 registered at Panipat Cyber Crime
- 09.01.2025: Arrest of Tipu Sultan
- 12.01.2025: Arrest of petitioner Mohammad Mohsin Siddiqui
- 15.01.2025: Arrest of co-accused Prakash Chaudhary
- 25.03.2026: Judgment reserved
- 30.03.2026: Judgment pronounced and uploaded
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that he was falsely implicated, no incriminating material was recovered from him, and the investigation is complete.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether integral participation in a large-scale, organized cyber fraud involving impersonation, digital coercion, and financial manipulation, coupled with a pattern of prior similar offences, justifies denial of regular bail even after completion of investigation and filing of challan.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated based solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused Tipu Sultan, which is inadmissible as evidence. The complainant never identified the petitioner. No incriminating material was recovered from him. His role, if any, was peripheral. The investigation is complete, trial will take considerable time, and continued detention serves no purpose. His involvement in other cases cannot be grounds for denial of bail.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the petitioner played an integral role in the fraud by forging bank documents and enabling unauthorized access to Mohit Kumar’s account, through which Rs. 65,00,000/- was siphoned. The crime was premeditated, organized, and involved multiple actors. The petitioner has prior antecedents, including two other similar FIRs and 19 online cyber crime complaints. There is a high risk of absconding or reoffending. The bulk of the proceeds remain unrecovered. The societal impact of such cyber fraud demands strict judicial response.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the offence, the petitioner’s role, and his criminal antecedents. It held that the allegations disclose a well-planned, multi-layered cyber fraud executed through impersonation of government agencies and psychological coercion under the guise of "digital arrest". The use of forged documents bearing the National Emblem and coordinated fund transfers across multiple banks indicate a sophisticated criminal enterprise.
"The petitioner was actively involved in facilitating the commission of the fraud by manipulating the records relating to bank account of Mohit Kumar in connivance with co-accused Tipu Sultan. As per the prosecution case, he forged the signatures of the said account holder on the bank updation forms and supplied the same to co-accused Tipu Sultan, thereby enabling unauthorized operation of the account."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that disclosure statements are inadmissible as a ground for bail, noting that other prima facie material - including financial trails, call records, and the recovery of Rs. 65,00,000/- routed through the manipulated account - independently corroborates the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s role was not incidental but integral to the execution of the fraud.
The Court further noted the petitioner’s antecedents: involvement in two other similar FIRs and 19 online cyber crime complaints, indicating a continuing pattern of criminal conduct. The Court observed that the menace of cyber fraud erodes public trust in digital systems and causes substantial financial harm to innocent citizens. Given the gravity of the offence, the petitioner’s active participation, and the risk of reoffending or absconding, the Court found no grounds to grant bail.
The Verdict
The petition for regular bail was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner’s integral role in the organized cyber fraud, the substantial amount involved (Rs. 1 crore), and his prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail. No monetary relief or conditional bail was granted. The petitioner remains in custody pending trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Integral Role Trumps Peripheral Involvement Claims
- Practitioners must demonstrate that the accused’s role was merely ancillary or passive to successfully argue for bail in organized cyber fraud cases
- Mere absence of direct victim identification or recovered incriminating material is insufficient if financial trails and co-accused disclosures establish active facilitation
Antecedents Are Material Even After Challan Filing
- Prior involvement in similar cyber crimes, even if not yet convicted, constitutes a valid ground for denying bail under Section 483 BNS
- Multiple pending complaints (19 in this case) establish a pattern that courts may weigh heavily at the bail stage
Digital Fraud Demands Strict Bail Jurisprudence
- Courts will treat impersonation of government agencies and "digital arrest" as aggravating factors
- The societal impact of cyber fraud justifies a stricter approach to bail, even where investigation is complete
- Recovery of proceeds is not a prerequisite for denying bail - risk of reoffending and absconding are sufficient grounds
