Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed for an FIR registered under Sections 308(2), 319(2), 318(4), 351(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000, a Single Judge Bench of Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J., dismissed the application stating that it was clear that the accused along with his co-accused had defrauded the complainant of Rs 7 Crores. The Court also remarked that for a thorough investigation of the modus operandi employed by the accused, his custodial interrogation was necessary.
Background
Allegedly, the complainant received a call from two persons who claimed to be officers of CBI stating that an FIR had been registered against him and his accomplice for money laundering. The complainant believed them, shared his information, received certain official documents, and was taken into ‘digital custody’. Soon after, the persons facilitated a fake Court hearing wherein the complainant’s matter was heard and decided by former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. Eventually, the complaint was coerced into transferring a sum of Rs 7 Crores. Aggrieved, the complainant filed an FIR against unknown persons for committing cybercrime while impersonating themselves as Government/ CBI officials.
Allegedly, the accused has orchestrated a sophisticated cybercrime scheme involving the creation and dissemination of forged and fabricated documents. Further, he could not satisfactorily explain the receipt of Rs 4 Crores from the complainant in a bank account linked to him.
Consequently, the accused herein was implicated. He contended that since he was fully cooperating with the Investigating Agency, custodial interrogation would serve no purpose. He also claimed that since the Bank had already transferred the alleged amount in favour of the complainant, no offence was made out. Thus, the present application was filed.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the affidavit submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offence and Cyber Crime, the Court stated that it was clear that the accused, along with other co-accused, had defrauded the complainant of Rs 7 Crores. Additionally, he forged an order from the Supreme Court and an arrest order issued by the Enforcement Directorate. Further, he coerced the complainant into transferring the alleged amount.
The Court remarked that instances of cyber fraud were increasing day by day. According to the Reserve Bank of India, there was a loss of Rs 3207 Crores due to 5,82,000 cases of cyber fraud from 2020 to 2024. In the financial year of 2023-2024, there was a loss of Rs 2054 Crores due to cyber fraud.
Thus, the Court held that to thoroughly investigate the modus operandi adopted by the accused and his other co-accused, his custodial interrogation was necessary.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
[Atanu Choudhary v. State of Punjab, Citation No. of 2024, decided on 03-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Padamkant Dwivedi and Mansi
For the respondent: Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab
