Dismissing a plea for regular bail in a cyber fraud case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that cyber fraud represents a distinct and grave form of criminality that warrants categorical exclusion from judicial leniency in bail determinations, given its potential to undermine trust in the digital financial framework and destabilise the economy.

The Court emphasised that cybercrime, by its nature, “operates through rapid execution, deception, and technological manipulation,” and therefore requires “judicial responses that are firm, well-aligned and resilient against the evolving sophistication of offenders.”

Justice Sumeet Goel observed that modern cyber fraud is a unique offence requiring strict judicial scrutiny and refusal of regular bail. He noted that the digital economy forms the core of contemporary commerce and relies on public confidence. Cyber fraud, he stated, functions as a corrosive assault that causes not only individual monetary loss but inflicts wider systemic damage to the public exchequer and results in deep institutional harm.

Highlighting the borderless nature of the offence, the Court noted that cyber fraud, due to its anonymity, trans-jurisdictional reach, and large-scale impact, poses inherent capability to destabilise financial systems and degrade institutional trust. Courts must therefore be conscious of the nature of such crimes to avoid indirectly endorsing an active and expanding threat, the Court added.

The observations came while rejecting a petition filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 seeking regular bail in an FIR registered at the Cyber Police Station, Rohtak, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC linked to a sophisticated online investment scam.

As per the complaint filed by Rajpal Yadav, he was added to a WhatsApp group named “Sinha Wealth Institute M 100,” allegedly run by several administrators using frequently altered contact numbers. Accused Nisha Gupta allegedly persuaded him to invest in share-trading schemes through an app titled “Wells Pro App.” Between January 9 and January 23, 2024, the complainant transferred ₹17.5 lakhs after being promised high returns. The accused reportedly showed a fake balance of ₹62 lakhs and later demanded an additional ₹8.2 lakhs as “income tax,” leading the complainant to discover the scam.

The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated based only on disclosure statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible, and since the bank account was already frozen, further custody was unnecessary. It was also argued that no meaningful evidence linked him to the alleged fraud.

Opposing bail, the State contended that the petitioner and others defrauded the complainant, and that crucial witnesses were yet to testify. A custody certificate from Taloja Central Prison revealed multiple FIRs registered against the petitioner nationwide, indicating habitual involvement in financial cybercrime. The State further warned that release might enable tampering with evidence or absconding due to the trans-border nature of the crime syndicate.

Terming cyber fraud “a modern felony warranting denial of regular bail,” the Court highlighted that judicial action must remain strong, calculated and deterrent.

The Court also recorded that 45 complaints had been submitted regarding the bank account used by the petitioner, with total amounts exceeding ₹8 crore, reflecting a sustained criminal pattern. Considering the magnitude of the scam, numerous FIRs, and the fact that no witnesses had been examined, the Court refused bail.

Counsel:
For petitioner – Mr. Ankit Parti, Advocate & Mr. Prasang Raheja, Advocate
For State – Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana

Case Title: Sarafuddin Ayub Sheikh v. State of Haryana