Accused recieved ₹5,00,000 from ₹1,33,50,000 got Bail from (Punjab And Haryana High Court) on Digital Arrest and Cyber Fraud Case.

 Anoop Alias Anup Vs State of Haryana (Punjab And Haryana High Court)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Anoop alias Anup, a petitioner in a high-profile cybercrime case involving a “digital arrest” scam. The court’s decision was based on the petitioner’s six-month and 14-day pre-trial custody period, as well as the principle that pre-trial incarceration should not be a form of punishment. While acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, the court concluded there was no justification for the petitioner’s continued detention at this stage. 

The case stems from an FIR registered on November 27, 2024, at the Cyber Crime Hansi Police Station in Haryana, under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The complainant, a 78-year-old advocate named Raj Kumar Vats, submitted a written application, alleging that he had been the victim of online fraud. The details of the scam reveal a sophisticated and multi-layered deception. 

According to the complainant’s statement, the fraud began on November 19, 2024, with a WhatsApp call from an unknown number. The caller initially identified himself as an official and informed the advocate that a parcel from Malaysia, intended for him, had been intercepted by the Bombay Customs Department and was found to contain narcotic substances. 

The complainant denied any connection to the parcel. 

The call was then transferred to other individuals who claimed to be from the Bombay Police and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 

They initially claimed the drug case had been dropped, but then pivoted to a new, more elaborate allegation.

The complainant was told that a former HDFC Bank manager, Sanjay Singh, had implicated him in a financial fraud. The callers alleged that a fictitious bank account had been opened in the advocate’s name, into which ₹32 crores had been deposited. 

This money, they claimed, was linked to human trafficking. The complainant repeatedly denied any knowledge of Sanjay Singh or the fraudulent bank account. 

The callers then escalated their tactics, claiming that Sanjay Singh had been arrested and had confessed to paying the complainant ₹1 crore for opening the account. They further alleged that Singh had trafficked 80 to 85 minors abroad, earning the ₹32 crores deposited in the fictitious account. The callers then demanded that the complainant cooperate with the investigation and share his and his wife’s bank account details. Feeling pressured, the advocate disclosed that he and his wife held approximately ₹1.25 crores in their accounts. 

The fraudsters then instructed him to liquidate his fixed deposits (FDRs) and transfer the funds to a bank account they claimed was held by the CBI Court. They assured him the amount would be returned after a verification process. Over a period of several days, between November 19 and November 26, 2024, the complainant and his wife transferred a total of ₹1,33,00,000 to the accounts provided by the fraudsters. It was only after this transfer that the complainant realised he had been defrauded and reported the matter to the police, leading to the registration of the FIR.

The petitioner, Anoop alias Anup, was not named in the initial FIR but was subsequently arrested and implicated in the crime. His legal counsel argued that he was falsely implicated and requested bail. The counsel stated that the petitioner was prepared to live as a law-abiding citizen and offered an undertaking that if he were to be involved in any future offence carrying a sentence of more than seven years, the state would be at liberty to file an application for the cancellation of his bail. 

The counsel also contended that further pre-trial incarceration would cause “irreversible injustice” to the petitioner and his family. 

The State’s counsel opposed the bail application, highlighting the severity of the offence. The state’s status report detailed the petitioner’s alleged role, stating that he and his co-accused had defrauded the complainant of ₹1,33,50,000. Specifically, it was revealed that the petitioner had received ₹5,00,000 in his Fino bank account out of the total fraud amount. The State’s opposition was also based on the petitioner’s criminal history, which included a 2018 FIR for an offence under the Indian Penal Code and two other recent FIRs from 2024 for similar offences under the BNSS, 2023. 

In its reasoning, the High Court took a balanced approach. It acknowledged that while the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR, there was sufficient prima facie evidence, including the direct transfer of funds, to connect him to the alleged crime. However, the court placed significant weight on the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive. 

It noted the petitioner’s custody period of over six months against the gravity of the penal provisions invoked in the case. The court also considered the recovery of ₹2 lakhs of the defrauded amount. 

Ultimately, the court determined that the continued pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner was not justified at this stage. It granted him bail, subject to specific conditions. The petitioner is required to furnish bonds to the satisfaction of the court, provide his Aadhaar, passport, and contact details, and agree not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. 

Crucially, the court imposed a conditional bail, stipulating that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offences, the State has the right to file an application for bail cancellation. Judicial Precedents This order does not explicitly reference or rely on any specific judicial precedents. The court’s decision to grant bail was based on an assessment of the facts and circumstances unique to this particular case, including the petitioner’s custody duration and the specific nature of the allegations. The judgment’s focus was on the application of the general principles of bail law, such as the distinction between pre-trial detention and post-conviction punishment, rather than on a precedent-setting legal interpretation. The court’s ruling does not serve as a broad legal directive for similar cases but rather as a discretionary decision based on the individual facts presented.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT 

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 56 27.11.2024 

Cyber Crime Hansi, Hansi 

318(4) / 61(2) / 3(5) / 336(3) /  338 / 340(2) / 238 of BNS, 2023 

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 

2. Per paragraph 12 of the bail application and paragraph 22 (H) of the reply/custody certificate, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: 

Sr. No. FIR No. Date/Year Offence Police Station 

1. 56 2018 323/341/506 of IPC Siwani, District Bhiwani 

2. 250 2024 318(2)/61(2)/3(5)/204 of BNS Cyber Crime, Gurgaon 

3. 179 2024 318(4)/319(2)/61(2) of BNS Cyber Crime, Kurukshetra 3

The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report dated 11.07.2025 filed by the State, which reads as follows: 

“The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Mr. Raj Kumar Vats, Advocate, submitted a written application seeking legal action against the accused for having allegedly committed an online fraud. 

According to the complainant, on 19.11.2024 at approximately 9.00 A.M., he received a WhatsApp call from an unknown number xxx9927835. 

The caller identified himself as an official and informed the complainant that the Bombay Customs Department had intercepted a parcel arriving from Malaysia, which was found to contain narcotic substances. 

The complainant denied any association with the said parcel. Subsequently, the caller stated that the matter would be investigated by the Bombay Police and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 

The call was then transferred to other individuals claiming to be law enforcement officials, who informed the complainant that the drug case had been dropped. However, they further alleged that one Mr. Sanjay Singh, a former manager at HDFC Bank, had implicated the complainant in a financial fraud by stating that he had opened a fictitious bank account in the complainant’s name, in which Rs 32 crores had purportedly been deposited. The said Sanjay Singh, along with two accomplices, was alleged to have illegally earned the aforementioned amount by facilitating the unauthorised emigration of individuals abroad. The complainant categorically denied any knowledge of Sanjay Singh or any such fraudulent bank account. 

Thereafter, the callers informed the complainant that Sanjay Singh had been arrested and had confessed to having paid Rs 1,00,00,000/- to the complainant for opening the said account. It was further alleged that Sanjay Singh had trafficked 80-85 minors to foreign countries, earning Rs 32 crores, which he deposited into the fictitious account. The callers claimed that an investigation was underway and requested the complainant to share the details of his and his wife’s bank accounts. The complainant disclosed that he held approximately Rs 1.25 crores in his account. He was then instructed to cooperate with the Bombay Police investigation. The complainant informed them that, being 78 years of age, he was not in a position to travel to Bombay. Subsequently, an individual identifying himself as Amit Kumar told the complainant that he would refer the matter to his senior, Mr. Anurag Jain. Mr. Jain allegedly informed the complainant that a “digital arrest” would be effected if he failed to comply. The complainant was then instructed to liquidate his fixed deposits (FDRs) and deposit the amount into a bank account purportedly held in the name of the CBI Court for the purpose of verification. It was assured that the amount would be refunded after verification. Relying on the said representations, the complainant transferred a total sum of Rs 1,33,00,000/- from his and his wife’s bank accounts to the accounts provided by the callers between 19.11.2024 and 26.11.2024. Subsequently, the complainant realised that he had been defrauded and accordingly submitted an application to the police. The investigating authorities have since collected the bank account statements of the complainant and his wife. Upon which a case FIR no. 56 dated 27.11.2024 under Sections 318(4) of BNS was registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Hansi, Police District Hansi.” 

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and he was not named in the FIR. On instructions, he further submits that in case this Court grants bail to the petitioner, he undertakes to live like a decent human being and a civilised member of society. He further undertakes that if he is again indulged in any offence where the sentence is more than 07 years, he would have no objection if the State files any application for cancellation of his bail. He further contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 

5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 

6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: 

“G. The role of the petitioner: That as far as the role of the petitioner/accused, it is submitted that the petitioner/accused is that he, along with the co-accused, committed fraud with the complainant for an amount of Rs 1,33,50,000/-. As per the investigation, he had received Rs. 5,00,000/- in his Fino bank account No.20351497809 on 20.11.2024 out of the total fraud amount. The allegations against the petitioner/accused are very serious in nature.” 

REASONING: 

7. Petitioner was not named in the FIR. Rs.5 lacs were transferred into his account, out of Rs. 36 lacs, which was initially transferred in another account. Rs. 2 lacs has already been recovered. There is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. 

                                         

Per paragraph 3(iii) of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 28.12.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 13.07.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 06 months and 14 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 

8. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. 

9. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 

10. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 

1. AADHAR number 

2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 

3. Mobile number (If available) 

4. E-Mail ID (If available) 

11. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 

12. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurise, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 

13. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offence, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 

14. Any observation made here in above is neither an expression of opinion on the case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 

15. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with the case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 

16. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.