Dinesh vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-50856 of 2026 (O&M) -1-



IN THE HIGH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

213
CRM-M-50856-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.11.2026

DINESH
...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:- Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG., Haryana.
*

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), seeking
the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 236 dated 25.07.2026
(Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 112(2) and 318(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (the latter corresponding to Section 420
IPC), at Police Station Cyber Crime (East), Gurugram.
2. As per the prosecution version, the present FIR came to be
registered during an investigation into suspicious bank accounts suspected to
have been used for facilitating cyber fraud. During verification of a current
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50856 of 2026 (O&M) -2-
account maintained with Yes Bank in the name of M/s Perfect IT Solutions,
of which co-accused Kailash was the account holder, several complaints of
cyber fraud were found to be linked with the said account. Upon being
apprehended, co-accused Kailash disclosed that he had opened the account
at the instance of the present petitioner, who had assured him monetary
consideration in return for providing banking facilities. It is further the
prosecution case that the petitioner obtained possession of the bank account
kit, ATM card, cheque book, internet banking credentials and registered SIM
card, thereby acquiring control over the account, which was purportedly
used for routing funds obtained through cyber fraud.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated and that the material relied upon by the
prosecution does not warrant his custodial interrogation. It is submitted that
the allegations against him are primarily founded upon the disclosure
statement of a co-accused, which, by itself, cannot constitute substantive
evidence against him. It is further argued that the relevant banking
transactions are already reflected in the records of the concerned banks,
while the electronic material relied upon by the prosecution is also in its
possession. In these circumstances, it is urged that custodial interrogation
would serve no useful purpose. The petitioner is stated to be ready and
willing to join the investigation and comply with any condition imposed by
this Court. On these premises, prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory
bail.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50856 of 2026 (O&M) -3-
the prayer. The status report dated 14.09.2026, as well as the supplementary
reply dated 20.09.2026, filed by way of affidavits of Gaurav Phogat, H.P.S.,
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber, Gurugram, are taken on record.
Referring particularly to the supplementary reply, learned State counsel
submits that further investigation has brought forth material indicating that
the petitioner was not merely a passive participant but was actively involved
in procuring and handling multiple mule bank accounts through which funds
connected with cyber fraud were received and transferred.
5. Learned State counsel submits that co-accused Kailash, who
was working as a gym trainer, was induced by the petitioner to open
multiple proprietary/current accounts in different banks in consideration of
monetary benefits. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner paid Kailash
Rs 30,000/- per month for six months, aggregating to Rs 1,80,000/-, for
procuring and making available such accounts. The petitioner is stated to
have obtained the internet banking credentials, ATM cards, cheque books,
welcome kits and registered SIM cards pertaining to these accounts. The
State further asserts that an email account linked with the banking operations
was being operated by the petitioner to facilitate the transactions.
6. It is further pointed out that, during investigation,
transactions amounting to Rs 53,71,75,513/- were found to have been routed
through a single Yes Bank account bearing No. 078526900000022. Learned
State counsel submits that the magnitude of these transactions, coupled with
the manner in which the accounts were procured and operated, indicates the
possible existence of an organised network engaged in cyber fraud, the full
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50856 of 2026 (O&M) -4-
extent of which remains under investigation.
7. The State has also placed reliance upon electronic records
and WhatsApp conversations stated to have been recovered from the mobile
phone of co-accused Kailash. According to the prosecution, these
conversations indicate the petitioner's involvement in operating the accounts
and contain communications concerning the evasion of police authorities
when the accounts came under scrutiny. It is specifically alleged that the
petitioner provided Rs 50,000/- to Kailash to enable him to flee and stay in
hotels. The relevant WhatsApp conversations have been referred to in the
supplementary reply as Annexure R-2.
8. Learned State counsel has further drawn attention to the
material concerning other criminal cases and complaints linked with the
alleged network of mule accounts. Reference has been made to FIR No. 91
dated 03.04.2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Manesar, Gurugram,
concerning a fraudulent trading investment scam involving Rs 5,52,058/-,
wherein the petitioner is stated to have joined the investigation on
07.08.2025 in the capacity of an aggregator. Reference has also been made
to FIR No. 67 dated 05.02.2026, registered at Police Station Chikhali,
Pimpri-Chinchwad, Maharashtra, concerning an investment fraud involving
approximately Rs 1.94/- crore, of which Rs 6,05,502 is stated to have been
credited into an account linked with the alleged network. The prosecution
has also referred to several complaints recorded on the National Cyber
Crime Reporting Portal concerning the accounts stated to have been
managed by the petitioner. It is submitted that custodial interrogation is
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50856 of 2026 (O&M) -5-
necessary to trace the remaining proceeds of crime, recover the original
banking instruments and digital devices, and ascertain the involvement of
other persons in the alleged network.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the material placed on record.
10. It is well settled that the power to grant anticipatory bail is
discretionary and requires consideration of the nature and gravity of the
accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the material collected
during investigation, the possibility of interference with the investigative
process and the necessity, if any, of custodial interrogation. In this regard,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17
SCC 510 , observed in paragraph 11 as under:
" 11. Yet, much like bail, the grant of anticipatory bail is to be
exercised with judicial discretion. The factors illustrated by this
Court through its pronouncements are illustrative, and not
exhaustive. Undoubtedly, the fate of each case turns on its own
facts and merits. …"
(emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid exposition underscores that the exercise of
discretion must be guided by the peculiar facts and circumstances of each
case. While the gravity of the accusation is undoubtedly relevant, it cannot,
by itself, justify the denial of pre-arrest bail. The Court must undertake a
balanced assessment of the material on record, bearing in mind the
protection of personal liberty as well as the legitimate requirements of a fair
and effective investigation.
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50856 of 2026 (O&M) -6-
11. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner
extend beyond his mere association with co-accused Kailash or an isolated
banking transaction. The prosecution attributes to him a specific role in
procuring, controlling and operating multiple bank accounts purportedly
used for receiving and transferring funds connected with cyber fraud. The
alleged procurement of banking credentials, ATM cards, cheque books and
registered SIM cards assumes significance when viewed in conjunction with
the substantial volume of transactions routed through the accounts in
question.
12. Although the disclosure statement of a co-accused cannot, by
itself, be treated as substantive evidence establishing the guilt of the
petitioner, the prosecution's case is not founded exclusively upon such
disclosure. Reliance has also been placed upon electronic communications,
banking records and complaints concerning the accounts under investigation.
The evidentiary value, authenticity and admissibility of this material would
fall for examination at the appropriate stage. For the limited purpose of
considering the present prayer, however, the material relied upon by the
investigating agency cannot be overlooked merely because its probative
worth remains to be determined.
13. A material allegation against the petitioner is that he
instructed co-accused Kailash to evade the police and provided him financial
assistance for that purpose. If substantiated by the electronic material relied
upon by the prosecution, such conduct would have a direct bearing on the
apprehension expressed by the investigating agency regarding possible
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50856 of 2026 (O&M) -7-
obstruction of the investigation. While the truth of this allegation remains a
matter for investigation, it is a relevant consideration in assessing the
petitioner's entitlement to pre-arrest protection.
14. The investigation also involves several interconnected bank
accounts, a substantial trail of financial transactions and complaints of cyber
fraud originating from different jurisdictions. The inquiry, therefore, is not
confined to identifying the account holders or verifying individual
transactions. It extends to ascertaining who exercised effective control over
these accounts, tracing the movement and ultimate destination of the funds,
and identifying the persons responsible for coordinating the alleged
operations. The alleged possession and use of original banking instruments,
registered SIM cards and digital credentials by the petitioner are matters
which require further investigation.
15. The contention that the evidence is predominantly
documentary or electronic in nature and, therefore, renders custodial
interrogation unnecessary cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition. In
cases involving an alleged network of mule accounts, the investigation may
extend beyond the collection of bank statements and electronic records to
identifying the persons controlling the accounts, tracing successive transfers,
recovering relevant devices and banking instruments, and verifying
communications between those involved. The necessity of custodial
interrogation must nevertheless be established with reference to the
particular circumstances of the case and cannot be presumed merely from
the nature of the offence alone.
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-50856 of 2026 (O&M) -8-
16. In the facts of the present case, the specific role attributed to the
petitioner, the electronic material stated to have been recovered from the co-
accused, the financial transactions linked with the accounts and, importantly,
the allegation that the petitioner facilitated the evasion of police authorities by
Kailash, lend substance to the State's apprehensions. These circumstances,
considered cumulatively, furnish sufficient grounds for accepting the State's
submission regarding the requirement of effective custodial interrogation at this
stage. The petitioner's willingness to join the investigation, though a relevant
consideration, does not adequately address the investigative requirements
disclosed by the material presently before the Court.
17. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, particularly
the nature of the specific allegations against the petitioner, the material
collected during investigation, the alleged attempt to facilitate the evasion of
police authorities by the co-accused and the necessity of tracing the financial
transactions and recovering relevant instruments, this Court is not persuaded
that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
18. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to
the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.


02.11.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
s.khan
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
SANJAY KHAN
2026.11.04 13:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document