A Mohali court has rejected the regular bail plea of a 23-year-old man accused of playing a central role in a ₹72-lakh cyber fraud racket in which scammers allegedly posed as officials of the police, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Additional Sessions Judge TPS Randhawa refused relief to the accused, Arun, a resident of Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh), emphasising that the allegations were grave and the evidence on record showed his direct involvement.
Fraud executed through impersonation of central agencies
According to investigators, the case revolves around a sophisticated cyber-extortion scheme in which fraudsters used fear and intimidation to coerce the victim into transferring a large sum of money. Complainant Mahendra Prakash Vyas told police that he received a series of calls from individuals posing as senior law-enforcement officials. These callers claimed that Vyas’s bank accounts were under scrutiny in a fabricated “money laundering investigation” and that immediate compliance was necessary to avoid arrest and criminal prosecution.
Under pressure and believing the threat to be genuine, Vyas transferred ₹72 lakh into multiple bank accounts provided by the callers. The trail of these transactions ultimately led investigators to Arun.
₹5 lakh traced to account linked to suspicious firm
Court documents reveal that ₹5 lakh of the siphoned amount was routed into an account associated with a dubious or possibly non-existent company named Umath Infotech. Investigators noted that the company had no verifiable business activity and exhibited several red flags typical of mule accounts used to launder proceeds of cybercrime.
Records further show that Arun withdrew the entire ₹5 lakh via cheque on the same day, October 9, 2024—just hours after the transfer was made. The prosecution argued that this rapid withdrawal indicated Arun’s active participation and his role as a crucial link in the chain of the fraudulent operation.
Defence calls transaction ‘routine business’; court finds no merit
During the hearing, Arun’s counsel Harsh Sharma contended that the money was part of a routine business transaction conducted with a co-accused. He claimed that Arun had no knowledge of the alleged fraud and that the transaction was being misconstrued.
However, the court dismissed these arguments, observing that the defence had not produced any credible documents showing legitimate business dealings with Umath Infotech or the co-accused. Judge Randhawa noted that the circumstances of the transaction, combined with Arun’s immediate withdrawal of funds, pointed towards deliberate involvement rather than inadvertent participation.
Seriousness of offence and untraced accused weigh heavily
The court also took into account that the fraud involved a substantial financial loss and that several members of the wider network remain untraced. Investigators told the court that the syndicate appeared to be part of an organised cybercrime setup operating across multiple states.
Judge Randhawa observed that granting bail at this stage could hinder the ongoing investigation, compromise efforts to arrest other absconding suspects, and potentially allow Arun to influence or alert co-conspirators. The court also pointed out that Arun had earlier been denied bail by the area magistrate and has been in judicial custody since May 19, 2025.
Case registered under BNS and IT Act provisions
The FIR, filed at the State Cybercrime Police Station, SAS Nagar, invokes stringent sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:
Sections 308(2), 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)
along with provisions of the Information Technology Act, specifically Sections 66-C (identity theft) and 66-B (dishonestly receiving stolen computer resources or communication devices).
Authorities say these sections reflect both the criminal intent behind the operation and the technological means deployed to mislead and intimidate the victim.
Investigation continues into larger network
Police teams are currently tracing the digital trail to identify additional bank accounts, digital wallets and communication channels used by the syndicate. Officers told the court that multiple phone numbers used for the impersonation calls were registered with fake identities, indicating the involvement of additional handlers who have yet to be located.
With Arun’s bail rejected, investigators expect to widen their probe into the financial and digital footprints linked to the network.
