No Anticipatory Bail when Custodial Interrogation is Essential: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Plea in ₹33.16L Crypto-Cyber Fraud Case [Read Order]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently affirmed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when custodial interrogation is essential for unearthing the truth in a serious financial offence that involves layered transactions and substantial cyber-fraud proceeds.

The observation was made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court while adjudicating a criminal anticipatory bail petition filed by Mohamad Naseem @ Mohmand Naseem after his plea was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula.

The facts pertain to the registration of a FIR under Sections 318(4) and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on allegations of cyber-fraud in which a sum of ₹33,16,700 was siphoned from the complainant Ravi Gupta, who was a practicing advocate.

The complainant stated that he had been lured through a Facebook messenger conversation into investing in a cryptocurrency scheme and proceeded to deposit money into an online platform on different dates until he discovered that his account had been frozen on the pretext of a “risk deposit.”

During investigation, the police froze all bank accounts through which the siphoned funds had been routed. The trail showed that ₹17,00,000 had been transferred into an IDFC Bank account and that from this account, ₹7,90,000 was transferred into a second-layer Equitas Bank account.

The Equitas account was held in the name of one Akashdeep Singh, who was arrested and disclosed that he had opened multiple bank accounts at the request of individuals including Gaurav and the petitioner Naseem, purportedly to receive GST refunds. He further disclosed that he, along with four others including Naseem, had withdrawn ₹9,00,000 from the bank and handed it over to two other accused. It was further noted that the mobile number linked to the Equitas account belonged to the petitioner.

Represented by Chandan Singh Rana, the petitioner contended that he was innocent and had no nexus with the alleged fraud. It was submitted that the petitioner’s name does not appear in the FIR and the only evidence collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of his co-accused.

It was also argued that the offence should be triable by the Judicial Magistrate and only a maximum sentence of seven years can apply as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014).

Deepali Verma, appearing for the state opposed the plea and stated that the petitioner was the kingpin of the fraud racket and that there was more evidence over the disclosure statement for his arraignment. The State argued that his custodial interrogation was of utmost importance to unearth the truth behind the transactions, the factum behind the linkage of his phone number to the fraudulent account and his alleged presence during the cash withdrawals.

Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that the petitioner is seeking extraordinary remedy by claiming the benefit of anticipatory bail - reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) where it was noted that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power and cannot, by any stretch of imagination be said that anticipatory bail is a rule.

Accordingly, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail and that the present petition is devoid of merit, which deserves dismissal.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates