Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea in ₹6.80 Crore ‘Digital Arrest’ Cyber Fraud Case
Justice Sumeet Goel rules custodial interrogation essential to unravel the conspiracy, calling cybercrime a “silent virus” that corrodes public trust in Digital India
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 2, 2026 dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Aayush Malhotra, a 23-year-old accused in a high-value cyber fraud case involving a victim from Faridabad, holding that the gravity of the offence and the needs of an ongoing investigation outweighed the case for pre-arrest protection.
The order was passed by Justice Sumeet Goel in CRM-M-17541-2026, on a petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Fraud
The FIR at the centre of the case — No. 167 dated June 25, 2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, NIT Faridabad — arose from a complaint by one Sushma Bhatia of Faridabad. She alleged that on June 16, 2025, she received a call from a person falsely claiming to be a CID Inspector from the Mumbai Crime Branch, who told her she had been arrested. This was followed by a video call in which another individual, posing as a police officer, informed her that she was an accused in the Naresh Goyal Jet Airways Money Laundering Case and had been placed under “digital arrest.”
The fraudsters threatened to issue formal legal orders and demanded a payment of ₹6.80 crore, warning her that proceedings would be conducted through WhatsApp video calls involving senior officers and a judge. She was instructed not to tell anyone or leave her home. The complainant and her husband managed to escape the house on the pretext of taking a bath and promptly reported the matter to police.
The Petitioner’s Case
Malhotra’s counsel argued that his client was not named in the FIR, which had originally been filed against unknown persons. His name surfaced only through the disclosure statement of a co-accused during investigation — a statement the defence contended was inadmissible in evidence and could not alone justify his implication. No recovery had been made from him, counsel argued, nor was there any financial, electronic, or documentary evidence directly linking him to the alleged transactions.
The defence further contended that co-accused in the same case had already been granted regular bail by the High Court in February 2026, and that since the investigation was effectively concluded, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was neither necessary nor warranted. His young age — 23 years — and the potentially irreversible damage to his career were also cited as grounds for relief.
The State’s Opposition
The State, represented by Senior DAG Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, opposed the bail and argued that the petitioner was actively involved in a serious and well-organised cybercrime syndicate. The prosecution maintained that custodial interrogation was essential to unravel the broader conspiracy, identify co-conspirators, and recover the defrauded funds. Releasing him at this stage, the State warned, risked evidence tampering and witness influence.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sumeet Goel declined to grant anticipatory bail, noting that the preliminary material on record prima facie established a nexus between the petitioner and the co-accused and the alleged transactions. The court rejected the parity argument — that bail granted to co-accused entitled this petitioner to the same — observing that the petitioner appeared to have a specific role distinct from the others.
In a notable observation, the court described cybercrime as operating like a “silent virus — insidious, disruptive, and exacting a toll on society” that goes well beyond financial loss, undermining public trust in digital platforms and running contrary to the aspirations of a “Digital Bharat.” The court said such offences demand heightened judicial caution given their capacity to harm multiple victims simultaneously.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Anil Sharma (1997), Justice Goel emphasised that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more productive than questioning a suspect shielded by an anticipatory bail order, and that effective investigation at this stage required the petitioner to be in custody.
The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The court clarified that nothing in the order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or the investigation.
