Chander Prakash v. State of Haryana

IN Chander P

State of H

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1seeking g 2023 in F under Sec 66-C, 66-of The T Kurukshe

¶2the basis on 19.09.2 informatio above Ba It was fur defraudin THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

Prakash

V/s Haryana

decision: 01.05.2026 Uploading : 01.05.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocat Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest b FIR No.63 dated 20.09.2025 r ctions 318(4), 319(2), 61(2), 3(5 -D, 75 of Information of Techno Telecommunications Act, 2023 etra. As per the prosecution case, of a complaint made by ASI Ish 2025, while he was on duty at th on that an illegal call centre wa ker's Lounge, near the Central rther alleged that the said call ce g individuals both within India

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-14550-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL te for the petitioner. , Senior DAG Haryana. filed on behalf of the petition bail under Section 482 of BNS registered for offences punisha 5), 241 of the BNS, 2023; Sectio ology Act, 2000 and Sections 42 3 at Police Station Cyber Cri , the FIR came to be registered ham Singh No. 23, who stated t he police station, he received sec as being operated on the first flo Bank of India, Ladwa–Indri Ro entre was engaged in cheating a and abroad and that if a raid w

ner SS, able ons

(3) me on hat cret oor ad.

conducted said infor at the prem engaged i such as E persons p were emp Nikhil, a employed was furthe to obtain that narco informatio present FI

¶3petitioner named in has been based upo evidence. identified recovery emphasize investigat According d, the culprits could be apprehe rmation, a raiding party was con mises in question wherein eleve in fraudulent calls to foreign nat EyeBeam and Zoiper. During t resent namely Rohit Malhotra, d ployed at the call centre and the resident of Delhi, who had d the aforementioned boys to ex er disclosed that under the direct personal and banking details of otic substances had been found i on was used to commit cyber fra IR was registered and investigati Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated int the FIR. Learned counsel has ascribed to the petitioner and on the disclosure statement of co It has been further contended th d; no specific transaction has been has been effected from the p ed that even the bank accou ted and later de-frozen after no s g to learned counsel, there is no

ended in the act. Acting upon nstituted and a raid was carried o en individuals were allegedly fou tionals using software applicatio the course of the raid, one of disclosed that all eleven individu e same was being operated by o taken the premises on rent a xecute the fraudulent operation tions of Nikhil, the employees us f victims by falsely informing th in their parcels and thereafter su aud. Based on these allegations, ion ensued. petitioner has iterated that to the FIR in question as he is n further iterated that no direct r his alleged involvement is sol o-accused, which is inadmissible hat no independent victim has be n attributed to the petitioner and petitioner. Learned counsel h unts of the petitioner have be suspicious transactions were foun material on record to show that

out und ons uals one . It sed em uch role ely e in een has een

petitioner whatsoeve Furthermo transactio the co-acc of fraud, emphasize that of ot bail by th petitioner that there incrimina likelihood tampering bail. On entreated

¶4anticipato present ca fraud ope Learned S has revea instrumen credential substance r has been operating the alleged er with the day – to-day fun ore, there exists no evidence ons or call details to establish any cused –– Nikhil Sapra. Moreov inducement or cheating by the ed that the role attributed to the ther co-accused who have alread he competent Courts and therefo r is also entitled to the same rel is no need for custodial interro ating remains to be recovered d of the petitioner absconding g with the prosecution evidence n strength of these submissions for. Per contra, learned State c ory bail to the petitioner by con ase are grave and serious in na eration targeting innocent person State counsel has iterated that t aled that the petitioner, in conni ntal in running an illegal call cen ls have been procured from victi es had been recovered from pa

d call centre or has any connecti nctioning of the said call cent either in the form of financ y nexus between the petitioner a ver, the FIR does not allege any e petitioner. Learned counsel h petitioner is limited and similar dy been granted the concession ore, on the principle of parity, ief. It has been further contend ogation of the petitioner as nothi from him. Moreover, there is g from the process of justice in case he is enlarged on pre-arr s, the grant of anticipatory bail counsel has opposed the grant ntending that the allegations in ature involving a large-scale cyb ns both in India as well as abro the investigation conducted so ivance with other co-accused, w ntre whereby personal and banki ms by falsely alleging that narco arcels sent in their names there

ion tre. cial act has r to n of ded ing or rest l is of ber ad. far was ing otic

committin submitted has surfa execution the said joining th agency de contended the purpo co-accuse seriousnes the petitio

¶5gone throu

¶6serious a considera operation facie indi individual the allege to part wi stage of c required t allegation ng organized cheating and c d that during the course of inves aced as a key conspirator who n and supervision of the illegal a call centre. Furthermore, the p he investigation and has not c espite the issuance of non-baila d that the custodial interrogation ose of unearthing the complete ed and to effect the recover ss of the allegations and the stag on in hand is prayed for. I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c As per the case put forth in allegations have been levelle ation of the record, it appears . The material collected during icates that the call centre in qu ls, particularly foreign nationals ed illegal consignments in their n ith personal and financial inform consideration of plea for grant of to assess the evidence in details ns are prima facie made out or

cybercrime. It has been furth stigation, the role of the petition o was involved in the plannin activities being carried out throu petitioner has deliberately evad cooperated with the investigati able warrants. It has been furth n of the petitioner is necessary modus operandi, identifying oth ry of money. Considering ge of investigation, the dismissal unsel for the rival parties and ha case. n the FIR in question, indubitab ed against the petitioner. Up s that a large-scale cyber fra g the course of investigation pri uestion was engaged in deceivi s, by falsely informing them abo names and thereafter induced th mation. It is well settled that at f anticipatory bail, the Court is n but only to determine whether not. Though the petitioner is n

her ner ng, ugh ded ing her for her l of ave bly, pon aud ima ing out

named in through st the prosec involved of the cal detailed i petitioner that the p named in investigat be fully u this Court the princi examined each accu grant of b him to th mechanic organised accused relevant/d asserted th the purpo persons an and gravi the FIR but his role has surfaced tatements of co-accused and oth cution, the petitioner is alleged in the larger conspiracy behind ll centre in question. This fact, in the investigation, points tow r in the alleged offence. At this st etitioner has no involvement me the FIR or no direct recovery tion is still in progress and the al unearthed. Furthermore, the ple t to take a different view. In the iple of parity cannot be claimed d in the light of the role attribu used. The petitioner stands on a bail to co-accused does not autom he same relief. The principle al manner, particularly in c d criminal activity. Therefore, persons neither confer any determinative factor to claim reg hat the custodial interrogation o ose of effectively unraveling th nd identifying the broader nexus ity of the offence, involving or

d during the course of investigati her circumstantial material. As p to be one of the persons who w the establishment and functioni coupled with other circumstanc wards the active complicity of tage, it cannot be conclusively h erely on the ground that he was n has been effected from him. T leged role of the petitioner is yet ea of parity also does not persua e considered opinion of this Cou d as a matter of right and must uted and overall circumstances different footing and therefore, matically bestow any right or enti of parity cannot be applied in cases involving conspiracy a the order granting bail to oth right nor be considered as gular bail. The police have furth f the petitioner is indispensable he modus operandi of the accus s involved in the fraud. The natu rganized cybercrime and financ

ion per was ing ces eld The t to ade urt, be of itle n a her a her for sed ure

deceit, ne conducted knowingly same cann anticipato investigat

¶7pleas, pa necessitat among th with its p and cyber confidenc counter to Bharat" a These off victims s deleteriou imperiling transgress the financ gateways analogous virus — i beyond m ecessitate a thorough investigatio d without the petitioner being i y or unknowingly, enable the c not be brushed aside as wholly u ory bail to the petitioner, at this tion. It is befitting to mention he articularly in cases concerning tes a meticulous evaluation of s ese is the inherent gravity and s potential societal ramifications. rcrimes poses a significant threat ce in digital financial transacti o the aspirations of an advanced and thus warrants a heightened fenses are characterized by their simultaneously, often with a us consequences of cybercrimes g numerous unsuspecting c sions cannot, therefore, be unde cial security and trust reposed b and platforms but also inherent s threats. Indeed, cybercrime in insidious, disruptive, and exactin mere pecuniary loss, encompass

on, which, at this stage, cannot in custody. The act, whether do commission of cyber fraud and unreliable and as such the grant stage, would hamper the on-goi ere that while adjudicating the b g cybercrimes and online frau several pivotal factors. Paramou seriousness of the offense, coup The proliferation of online frau t, as it systematically erodes pub ion platforms. Such erosion ru d and digitally empowered "Digi degree of judicial circumspecti capacity to aggrieve a multitude single act of commission. T s transcend individual boundari citizens. The gravity of su erstated. They not only jeopard by individuals in financial paym tly expose the broader populace our nation operates akin to a sil ng a toll on society that extends sing the bedrock of trust, securi

be one t of ing bail ud, unt led uds blic uns ital on. e of The ies, uch dize ent e to ent far ity,

and natio such offen financial anticipato eye to th depredatio facie case come on reasonabl anticipato in effectiv

¶8offence w directly co fraud. T overshado veracity o considera the consid which cu determine whether h who may Court, gr ongoing in onal progress. Given the inheren nses, and their wide-ranging cas institutions, this Court finds itse ory bail as prayed for. To do oth e profound and far-reaching d ons. At this stage, there is no ma e is not made out against the p record and preliminary investig e basis for the accusations. Th ory bail to the petitioner, as it wo ve investigation. Cyber fraud coordinated by with far-reaching consequences ontribute to creating an infrastru The contention of the petitio ow the specific allegations in the of such defence can only be teste ation of pre-arrest bail. The inv dered opinion of this Court, the o ustodial interrogation of the e the extent of his knowledge he was aware of the misuse and y have facilitated the offence. ranting anticipatory bail at this nvestigation.

nt nature and profound gravity scading effects on both society a elf disinclined to grant the relief erwise would be to turn a Nelso etrimental impact of these digi aterial on record to hold that pri petitioner. The material which h gation, appear to be established hus, it is not appropriate to gr ould necessarily cause impedim y multiple individuals, is a serio s. The actions of the petition ucture that was exploited to comm oner of false implication cann e present FIR. The weightage a ed at the trial and not at the stage vestigation is at a crucial stage. offence of this nature is serious petitioner may be necessary regarding the fraudulent sche d the identities of other co-accus In the considered opinion of t s stage may likely to hamper

of f of n's ital ima has d a rant ent ous ner mit e of In for to me sed

¶9stage, fro implicated considerin between s Court oug attributed deeper an stage, the made out prelimina accusation petitioner investigat 1039, the Moreover, no cause nay plau m which it can be deciphered t d into the present FIR. It is be ng a plea for grant of anticipator safeguarding individual rights an ght to reckon with the magnitude d to the accused; the need for fai nd wide impact of such alleged ere is no material on record to against the petitioner. The mate ary investigation, appear to be est ns. Thus, it is not appropriate r, as it would necessarily tion. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as "6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orie well-ensconced with a favourable a case like this, effective inter tremendous advantage in disinter materials which would have interrogation would elude if the protected and insulated by a pre interrogated. Very often interroga a mere ritual. The argument tha with the danger of the person b need not be countenanced, for, su accused in all criminal cases. Th police officers would conduct th would not conduct themselves as o

usible cause has been shown, at t that the petitioner has been fals efitting to mention here that wh ry bail, the Court has to equilibr nd protecting societal interests. T e and nature of the offence; the r ir and free investigation as also d iniquities on the society. At t hold that prima facie case is n erial which has come on record a tablished a reasonable basis for to grant anticipatory bail to cause impediment in effect 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (C under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ented than questioning a suspect who e order under Section 438 of the Code rrogation of a suspected person is rring many useful informations and a been concealed. Success in s suspected person knows that he is w e-arrest bail order during the time he ation in such a condition would reduce at the custodial interrogation is frau being subjected to third-degree meth uch an argument can be advanced by he Court has to presume that responsi hemselves in task of disintering offen offenders."

this ely hile rate The ole this ive Cri) n is o is e. In s of also uch well e is e to ught ods y all ible

¶10organized necessity this Court the conce

11.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

May 01, 2 Ajay

In view of the gravity and d nature of the crime, the stag of the custodial interrogation fo t is of the considered opinion th ssion of anticipatory bail in the f In view of the prevenient rati The instant petition is devoid Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

seriousness of the allegations, e of the investigation as also or a fair and thorough investigati hat the petitioner does not deser factual milieu of the case in hand iocination, it is ordained thus: d of merits and is hereby dismiss hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

on, rve d. sed.