No Automatic Bail for Magistrate-Triable PMLA Cases: Himachal Pradesh HC dismisses bail Application [Read Order]

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has firmly held that offences triable by a Judicial Magistrate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) do not attract automatic bail, dismissing the interim bail application of an accused businessman arrested in a cyber fraud and money laundering case.

The single‐judge bench of Justice Virender Singh was hearing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), during trial in an FIR registered on May 21, 2024, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Mandi District.

In his petition, Kulveer claimed innocence, asserting that he had been falsely implicated and that the investigation was complete with nothing further to be recovered. He also emphasized his roots as a permanent resident of Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, and provided undertakings to comply with any bail conditions. His earlier bail application was rejected by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mandi, on May 6, 2025.

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements!, Enroll Now

The prosecution’s status report detailed a sophisticated cyber‐fraud operation. Retired Brigadier Suresh Gupta alleged that he was tricked into transferring ₹20 lakh to an ICICI Bank account belonging to Veer Sona (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., after being impersonated by individuals claiming to be Cyber Crime and CBI officers. Further investigation revealed total deposits of ₹2.45 crore in the company’s account, of which ₹7.83 lakh and ₹12.16 lakh were directly linked to the complainant’s loss.

Notably, IP logs traced to mobile numbers 9457197592 and 7534853541 were linked to Kulveer, and Consumer Application Forms and call detail records placed him at the locations where fraudulent transactions were executed. Moreover, he was already facing a separate FIR in Faridabad, Haryana, and had been in judicial custody since August 16, 2024, for offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.

The High Court noted that out of 12 prosecution witnesses, five had testified and the trial was scheduled to resume on June 9, 2025. The police expressed concerns that Kulveer, if released, could intimidate or influence witnesses and abscond given his out‐of‐state connections.

Rejecting the bail plea, Justice Singh underscored the gravity of laundering large sums of money. He held that individual liberty must be balanced against societal interest, and that the mere triability of an offence by a Magistrate does not confer an automatic right to bail.

The court emphasized that bail decisions must be based on the unique facts and circumstances of each case, particularly when serious offences and substantial evidence are involved.

Kulveer’s bail application was consequently dismissed, with the High Court directing the trial court to proceed without prejudice to the merits of the case.

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