New Delhi: Taking a firm stand against rising cybercrime, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to a bank employee accused of cheating a retired IAS officer of ₹50.30 lakh by threatening him with fake money laundering cases and arrest warrants.
Dismissing the bail plea, Justice Manisha Batra observed that “almost every other day, innocent members of the public are falling prey to such offences,” adding that granting leniency in such cases would send a wrong signal to society.
The court noted that the allegations were serious at the prima facie stage and expressed apprehension that the accused could abscond or repeat similar offences if released. It also recorded that there was nothing on file to suggest undue delay in the completion of the trial.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
Money transferred after fear of arrest was created
According to the prosecution, the accused, along with his associates, impersonated police officials and repeatedly called the retired IAS officer, claiming that arrest warrants had been issued against him in money laundering cases. Exploiting the fear generated through these calls, the accused allegedly induced the victim to transfer money into multiple bank accounts.
Investigators told the court that the total amount siphoned off exceeded ₹50.30 lakh.
Court records further reveal that the accused procured a new SIM card to make the fraudulent calls, registering it in the name of a woman through another individual, who later admitted his role in facilitating the offence. The accused was arrested in August 2025 with a mobile phone and subsequently confessed to his involvement in the crime.
Bank employee allegedly orchestrated account access
The prosecution informed the court that the accused was working in the sales department of a private bank and played a key role in executing the fraud. He allegedly persuaded two co-accused to provide their bank accounts for routing the cheated money.
Around ₹17 lakh was transferred to the account of one co-accused, which was later withdrawn with the assistance of the present petitioner. It is further alleged that the accused received ₹5 lakh as his share of the proceeds.
Opposing the bail plea, the state submitted that the accused was an “active participant” in the cyber fraud and that the defrauded amount had not yet been recovered. The prosecution also warned that granting bail could lead to tampering with evidence and increase the risk of repeat offences.
Defence arguments rejected
Counsel appearing for the accused argued that his client had been falsely implicated, had clean antecedents, and was not named in the FIR. It was also submitted that he had been in custody since May 2025, no money was credited to his personal bank account, and the investigation had already been completed.
The defence further contended that the trial was likely to take considerable time, making the accused entitled to bail.
However, the High Court was unconvinced. In its order, the court held that considering the gravity of the allegations, the possible sentence upon conviction, and the overall facts of the case, the accused did not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.
Court flags rise in ‘digital arrest’ scams
While dealing with the matter, the court also took note of the alarming rise in so-called “digital arrest” scams, where victims are threatened with fabricated criminal cases and shown fake court proceedings over video calls to coerce them into transferring money.
The High Court urged citizens to remain vigilant and advised immediate reporting of suspicious calls or online demands to cybercrime authorities.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
