CRM-M/42765/2026 of ROHAN DUBEY Vs UT OF CHANDIGARH on 10 September 2026

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 08.09.2026

2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 10.09.2026

3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 10.09.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Hunarveer Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh with Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Dixit Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent/State. ... Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.109, dated 08.09.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 351(2), 61(2) of the BNS (offences punishable under Sections 112(2) and 317(2) of the BNS were added lateron), at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Chandigarh.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant – Nikhil working with Netflix company as a salesman alleging therein that he was in dire need of money and had told this fact to his acquittance Viku @ Makhana, who had asked him to give details of his bank account and had then offered that the complainant would be receiving a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in his bank account, out of which he would be able to get Rs.10,000/-. He also assured that the money so credited in his bank account would not be from any wrong source and it was to be sent by some of his acquittance. On being so allured, the complainant had agreed to divulge the details of his bank account to accused Viku @ Makhana. Then as per instructions from accused Viku, he had responded to a phone call and had reached at Ram Darbar bus stand on 05.06.2025 where three youths met him, who asked him to accompany them to his State Bank of India, Sector-17 branch, wherein they deposited an amount of Rs.10.50 lakhs. The complainant asked them the reason for depositing such amount of money and those youths disclosed that they had received such amount of money by selling of their ancestral land. They procured the signatures of the complainant on a cheque for a sum of Rs.4.85 lakhs and withdrew the said amount of money. They also withdrew an amount of Rs.30,000/- by using the ATM card of the complainant and kept the said amount with them. On 24.06.2025, the complainant received a message from his banker that an amount of Rs.44,500/- deposited in his account had been frozen. The complainant asked the above named persons the reason for freezing of his account but they extended threats to kill him. By suspecting that his bank account had been used for fraudulent transactions and for use of cyber fraud money, he prayed for taking action in the matter.

3. After receipt of the complaint, initially preliminary inquiry was conducted. The Investigating Agency analyzed the allegations levelled in the complaint in conjunction with technical and digital intelligence obtained from Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and Pratibimb Portal, which revealed that by forming an organized cyber crime syndicate, certain persons were engaged in commission of various cyber offences including fake digital arrest scams, investment frauds, phishing attacks, mobile and debit card frauds etc. and the proceeds of crime generated through such frauds were systematically routed into the bank account of the complainant and subsequently withdrawn through cheques and ATM transactions at his instance and under the directions of the accused persons. A formal FIR under the aforementioned sections was registered.

4. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the money received by way of fraudulent transactions was transferred into various bank accounts. It was further revealed that an amount of Rs.8.78 lakhs which was credited in the bank account operative in the name of Deepak International Limited, Himachal Pradesh operated by accused Gaurav Thakur was transferred in the bank account operative in the name of co-accused Ankit. He was apprehended on 18.01.2026 and was formally arrested. It was also revealed that he functioned as a mule account holder and intentionally permitted cyber fraudesters to utilize his personal bank account for receiving and laundering illicit funds. It also transpired that on 03.06.2025, three separate fraudulent deposits total amounting to Rs.8.78 lakhs were credited into his bank account and were withdrawn on the same day. Co-accused Ankit disclosed that his bank account was solicited by the the present petitioner on commission of Rs.4000/- and he had accepted the offer due to personal financial difficulties. The petitioner was arrested on 19.01.2026. Investigation now stands concluded.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He himself is a victim of fraud as his own bank account had been misused by accused Amritpal Singh and Paulish by making representation to the effect that he same was required for receiving money from online trading and gaming activities and on alluring him to give some money out of the same. The amount of Rs.9.87 lakhs which was transferred into his bank account was not used by him rather the same had been withdrawn by the co-accused. He had been paid a meagre amount of Rs.9000/- only as a commission. His antecedents are clean. He has suffered sufficient incarceration. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

6. Per contra, learned Public prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh has argued that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He had targeted and contacted co-accused Ankit and had dishonestly solicited his bank account details under the false representation of receiving funds from the online trading and gaming activities and thereby inducing co-accused

Ankit to share his SBI bank details in exchange for a promised commission of Rs.4000/-. He had facilitated receipt/transfer of the amount of Rs.8.78 lakhs in the bank account of co-accused Ankit, which was got withdrawn through self cheques. His role is substantial as he facilitated the receipt and movement of proceeds of cyber fraud through bank account of co-accused, recruited other individuals for facilitating such transactions and thereby furthered the purpose designed and modus operandi of the cyber crime syndicate, in which he was actively involved. It is also argued that there are chances of petitioner's tampering with the evidence, absconding or committing similar offences, if extended benefit of bail. It is, thus, stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

7. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The petitioner, who is alleged to have a member of an organized cyber crime syndicate is alleged to have induced the co-accused to divulge his bank account details to him so that the same could be used for transfer of money received by committing cyber frauds and got credited an amount of Rs.8.78 lakhs in the bank account of co-accused Ankit which was subsequently withdrawn at his behest. He is further alleged to have used his own bank account operative at Indian Overseas Bank for deposit of different amounts of money aggregating to Rs.9,87,200/- received from fraudulent transactions and withdrawn the same. The allegations against him are specific and supported by documents collected during the course of investigation. The offence in question is not an isolated act but part of an organized cyber fraud wherein providing banking channels forms a crucial links in execution of crime. The cyber crimes are steadily increasing and have a deep-rooted impact on society. Such offences are serious economic crimes, affecting not only the victim(s) but the financial system at large and therefore, require a strict approach at the stage of granting bail itself. Keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the manner in which the subject offences were committed, the role attributed to him and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no compelling ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

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

10. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) 10.09.2026 JUDGE harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No