Rishu Deep Maurya vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Rajat Arora alleging that in May 2025, on a dating APP named Hinge, he had come into contact with one female who introduced herself as Kiara Hooda. The complainant had started conversating with her. That female gradually gained trust of the complainant. She claimed that she had been trading on online platforms and induced the complainant to join trading website. On her asking, the complainant initially invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- and was further induced to part with a sum of Rs.2,44,40,110/- during the period from 02.06.2025 to 31.07.2025. On the online platform, the investments made by him were showing huge profit. However, when he tried to withdraw the amount as shown therein, he was asked to deposit 30% tax and having realized that he had been duped of his money, he prayed for taking action.

After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was transpired that money from the bank account of the complainant had been transferred to 22 different bank accounts, one of which was in the name of M/s IGMS Services which was shown to be the proprietor concern of the present petitioner. With regard to the same bank account, two other complaints were also found to have been registered on NCRP Portal. The petitioner was nominated as accused. Apprehending his arrest, he moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide order dated 04.07.2026.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, he had come into contact with one Dheeraj Yadav and his brother Neeraj Yadav who was engaged in the wholesale business of mobile accessories under the name of M/s Zebronics. Both of them had allured him to upgrade his part time business to an online platform for higher profits. On being so allured and on the asking of the above named Dheeraj and Neeraj Yadav, he had handed over copies of his Aadhar Card and PAN Card etc. to them and had opened a saving bank account access of which was taken by the accused Dheeraj Yadav. An amount of Rs.16 lakhs had been transferred in that account and the same was frozen on suspicion by the bank authorities. The petitioner on coming to know about this fact had contacted the bank authorities for defreezing the account but his request was declined. The above named Dheeraj Yadav and Neeraj Yadav had further introduced him with two more persons, namely, Pushpendra Singh and Jay Yadav and had allured him to open another bank account by opening a firm. He had accordingly opened bank account in the name of M/s IGMS Services. All the documents required for that purpose had been given to the co-accused and the factum of transfer of an amount of Rs.15 lakhs from unverified sources, was not known to the petitioner. It is submitted that he himself is a victim and had been dragged into online multiple cyber fraud. He is not beneficiary of any transaction. He is ready to join investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. AG, Haryana has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. For conducting proper investigation in the matter and to know about the trail of the entire offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. The petitioner had opened not one but two bank accounts in his name (in the name of his firm) which prima facie suggests his ill intentions as well as active complicity in the cyber crime. It is, therefore, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has considered the rival submissions.

The allegations make out a prima facie case qua involvement of the petitioner in commission of the subject offences. A substantial amount of money which was extracted from the complainant was transferred into the bank account of the firm operated in the name of the petitioner. The role of the petitioner has emerged during the course of investigation. The offences alleged to be committed by him are not an isolated act but part of an organized cyber fraud wherein providing banking channels forms a crucial link in execution of the crime. Cyber crimes are steadily increasing and have a deep-rooted impact on society, targeting unsuspecting citizens and eroding public confidence in digital platform. Such offences are serious economic crimes, affecting not only the victim but the financial system at large and, therefore, require strict approach at the stage of bail. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the subject offences were committed, the part shown to have been played by the petitioner and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must in this case. More so, no exceptional and sparing circumstance warranting exercise for grant of powers of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS is made out in this case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.