Pankaj vs State Of Punjab

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 17 dated 13.03.2025 under Sections 318(4), 61(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Cyber Crime Patiala, District Patiala. This is the first petition for regular bail.

Complainant Baljit Singh alleged that on 21.09.2024, he received a telephone call from mobile number +91 8545086148. The caller represented that he was calling from Hyderabad. He told him that he had taken a credit card, failed to pay its installments and that the matter was being transferred to SEBI. Thereafter, complainant received a WhatsApp call from mobile number +91 9987024695, through which he was told that he was involved in fraudulent activities and that his name had figured in a case relating to Naresh Kumar, stated to be the owner of Jet Airways. The callers further alleged that complainant had received 10% commission from Naresh Kumar and was involved in fraudulent activities. The complainant further stated that the callers threatened him with digital arrest and directed him not to disconnect the call or communicate with any other person. Under the said instructions and out of fear, he stayed in a hotel at Devigarh and remained in the hotel room from approximately 7:00 PM on 21.09.2024 till 10:00 AM on 23.09.2024. During this period, the callers continued to contact him and told him that pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, he was required to deposit the entire amount in a specified bank account and that the amount would be returned to him after 72 hours. The complainant was also shown certain documents containing his name. Acting upon the said representations and threats, he transferred ₹8,00,000/- from his Punjab National Bank account No. 13422191013937 to bank account No. 60505228947, stated to be in the name of Pankaj, having IFSC Code MAHB0002630. After making the payment, he informed his friend, who apprised him that he had been defrauded. Thereafter, he contacted cyber helpline 1930 and registered Complaint No. 32509240019494 dated 23.09.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in custody for the last 07 months. The only allegation against him was that he had received proceeds of crime in his account and transferred it. Petitioner was himself a victim of cyber criminals, who fooled him to consent to use of his bank account for receiving small amount of money. Petitioner, thus, deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail arguing that during the course of investigation, forged documents and electronic records including fake identity card of purported CBI Officer, forged letters purportedly issued by CBI, fabricated communications of Reserve Bank of India, fake digital arrest orders, forged acknowledgment receipts of Income Tax Department, details of beneficiary bank accounts used by fraudsters and transaction receipts showing transfer of ₹8,00,000/-were received. ₹8,00,000/- were credited in account of the petitioner, who disclosed the names of two others involved in the offence, who induced him to open bank account and get the account linked with the mobile number of other persons. In case of release on bail, petitioner was was likely to indulge in similar offences. It was argued that the petitioner was the first link in the chain of diversion of defrauded amount and did not deserve to be enlarged on regular bail.

In crimes such as the present one, which are increasingly on the rise, the Courts are required to exercise greater caution. Though grant of bail is the rule, the case against the petitioner is of exceptional character. Although the petitioner is in custody for the last 07 months, allegations against him are serious. Considering the organised nature of the offence, the magnitude of the crime, the material collected by the prosecuting agency, the active role of the petitioner in facilitating the receipts of cheated amount, it is not a fit case to enlarge him on regular bail. There is high probability of the petitioner continuing similar unlawful activities and repeating similar offence once enlarged on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegations, complexity of the investigation and impact of such offences on the society, there are sufficient grounds to deny the concession of bail to the petitioner. The petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.