Cyber Crime Involving Impersonation Of Law Enforcement Officials Threatens Public Confidence: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail

The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused in a "cyber fraud" case involving a person who posed as a police personnel from  Delhi Crime Branch to allegedly extort money from the complainant. 

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul in her order said,"Cyber crime of this magnitude, involving financial extortion and impersonation of law enforcement officials, poses a serious threat to public confidence in digital transactions. Given the sophisticated nature of the crime and the alleged role of the petitioner in financial transactions, custodial interrogation is imperative to unearth the entire conspiracy, identify other perpetrators,  trace the proceeds of crime and prevent the recurrence of such frauds."

Justice Kaul further underscored that "mere absence of antecedents cannot be a ground for anticipatory bail," when the offence itself is of an extremely serious nature, involving a large scale fraudulent operation. 

The Court was hearing a pre-arrest bail plea of Tabrej accused in a case lodged under Sections 419(cheating by impersonation), 420(cheating), 170(personating a public servant), 384(extortion), 201(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender), 204(Destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Bhiwani.

According to the FIR the complainant–an elderly person, was deceitfully trapped into well orchestrated extortion scheme. The complainant allegedly received a video call from an unknown woman, who manipulated him into engaging in an inappropriate act while simultaneously recording it.

It was alleged that later the complainant received a video call from a person claiming to be an officer of the Delhi Crime Branch falsely informing him that an obscene video involving him had surfaced on YouTube and that legal action will be taken.

Exploiting the complainant's fear and desperation, the caller directed him to a "so-called YouTuber" who could allegedly remove the video in exchange for substantial monetary payments.

It was submitted that induced by the fraudulent plan, the complainant was coerced into transferring large sums of money in multiple transactions across various bank accounts. It was alleged that each time an amount was deposited, fresh demands were made under different pretexts, including the need for further payments to delete the video, secure non-existent legal clearances, and obtain foreign "stamps" for procedural formalities.

Through this deceitful mechanism, the complainant was allegedly defrauded of approximately Rs.36,84,300.

The investigation revealed that multiple persons, including the petitioner, were involved in the syndicate, systematically extorting money from victims through digital and financial manipulation.

The counsel representing the accused submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has only been implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which, it is submitted, has no evidentiary value in law.

It was further contended that no incriminating material directly connects the petitioner to the alleged offence except vague and inadmissible statements. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, and he is, therefore, not required for custodial interrogation.

After examining the submissions, the Court opined that that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and prima face disclose his active participation in a "well organized cyber-criminal syndicate engaged in systematic financial fraud".

Justice Kaul opined that the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons reveals a deliberate, calculated, and premeditated plan to defraud unsuspecting persons by exploiting their fear and social vulnerabilities.

The judge observed that the argument by the counsel that the petitioner is not named in the FIR does not, by itself, entitle him to the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail, particularly when the investigation has uncovered his financial links to the crime.

The Court said that claim that the FIR was lodged belatedly is also untenable, as cases of such nature often involve victims taking time to muster the courage to report such incidents.

"Furthermore, the disclosure statement of a co-accused, when prima facie corroborated with independent material, such as, bank transactions, mobile call records, and digital evidence, cannot be dismissed outright at this stage," it added.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Satish Chudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Title: Tabrej @ Tarif v. Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 138

Click Here To Read/Download Order