Cyber Fraud Cases: Courts Must Be Cautious While Granting Bail, Says Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while hearing a case last week related to cyber fraud, took a firm stance against those who facilitate cyber frauds and emphasised that the courts must be cautious while granting bail in such matters. In an era where digital transactions have become synonymous with daily transactions, cyber fraud incidents are also rising with more sophisticated ways using artificial intelligence (AI). 

Underscoring the exceptional character of cybercrimes and nil tolerance required towards such organised crime, Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal denied bail to an accused, Sushil Kaushik, who allegedly provided fraudulent SIM cards and mule bank accounts to fraudsters.

Case Background

The complainant (Pankaj Kumar) had filed an FIR at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Chandigarh on December 26, 2025. The complainant said that a woman, who identified herself as Simran Sharma from the American Express Card Department, contacted him on October 28, 2025. She offered to convert his SBI credit card into an American Express credit card with a higher credit limit for a nominal fee of Rs 170. He agreed and clicked on the link shared with him on WhatsApp on November 4, 2025, to convert his card.

This is when his phone was hacked. He realised that two unauthorised payments, totalling Rs 1,73,463, were made from his account, and lodged the complaint. Following his complaint, the police investigated and found an organised cyber fraud syndicate behind the fraud and arrested the call centre employees involved in the fraud along with the kingpin, Ajay Singh Mann.   

Kaushik was apprehended on January 22, 2026, for his alleged role in supplying the SIM cards and bank accounts to receive the fraudulent funds.

Arguments

Kaushik’s counsel argued that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was also highlighted that he had been in judicial custody for over six months and that the examination also didn’t fully support the prosecution’s case, which states only that the money was “wrongly deducted”. The counsel also pointed out that several co-accused had already been granted regular bail.   

To this, the state counsel opposed the bail, arguing that Kaushik was the main accused alongside the kingpin. The state also presented technical evidence showing that the SIM which was used in the crime was issued in Kaushik’s name and his mobile was directly linked to the bank account used in which the stolen money was transferred.

Court Observation

The court observed that while bail is generally the rule, this case was exceptional due to the petitioner (Kaushik) being an “integral member” of an organised syndicate.

Justice Nagpal noted that Kaushik performed a crucial logistic and operational role by arranging mule accounts through fraudulent means. The court further observed that the complainant’s testimony, although limited, didn’t deny the fraudulent deduction of funds through the malicious link.

The counsel contended that it is because of his (petitioner’s) specific role in providing infrastructure that the petitioner could not be treated at par with the co-accused who had already been released.

Court Judgment

In the final judgment on August 6, 2026, the court ordered that there is a high probability of the petitioner repeating similar unlawful activities if released. It held, “In crimes such as the present one, which are increasingly on the rise, the courts are required to exercise greater caution. There is a high probability of the petitioner continuing similar unlawful activities and repeating similar offence once enlarged on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegations, complexity of the investigation and impact of such offences on the society, there are sufficient grounds to deny the concession of bail to the petitioner.” 

Accordingly, the court dismissed the regular bail petition.