The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a man accused in a cyber fraud case where a scammer allegedly posed as a Delhi Crime Branch officer to extort money from a victim.
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul's Observations
While rejecting the bail plea, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul emphasized the severity of the crime and the risk it poses to public trust in digital transactions.
"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 noted that:
"Mere absence of antecedents cannot be a ground for anticipatory bail," considering the large-scale fraudulent operation involved.
Read also:Punjab & Haryana HC Summons Top Officials Over Lack of Jail Security Measures
Case Details and Charges
The court was hearing the bail plea of Tabrej, who was booked under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
- Section 419 – Cheating by impersonation
- Section 420 – Cheating
- Section 170 – Personating a public servant
- Section 384 – Extortion
- Section 201 – Causing disappearance of evidence
- Section 204 – Destruction of electronic records
- Section 120-B – Criminal conspiracy
The case was registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Bhiwani.
How the Scam Worked: A Sophisticated Fraud
According to the First Information Report (FIR), the victim, an elderly man, fell into a well-planned extortion scheme.
- The Setup:
- The complainant received a video call from an unknown woman.
- He was manipulated into engaging in an inappropriate act, which was recorded.
- The Threat:
- Later, he got a video call from someone claiming to be a Delhi Crime Branch officer.
- The caller falsely informed him that an obscene video involving him was uploaded on YouTube and that legal action would follow.
- The Extortion:
- Exploiting his fear, the scammer directed him to a so-called YouTuber who could allegedly remove the video in exchange for money.
- The complainant transferred large sums of money in multiple transactions to various bank accounts.
- Every time he paid, new demands were made—excuses ranged from legal clearances to international "stamps" for procedural formalities.
Through this elaborate deception, the complainant was defrauded of approximately ₹36,84,300.
Investigation Reveals a Larger Syndicate
The police investigation exposed a well-organized cyber-criminal network that systematically extorted victims. The accused, Tabrej, was linked to financial transactions in the case.
Defense Arguments
The defense lawyer argued that:
- Tabrej was not named in the FIR and was only implicated through a co-accused's disclosure statement, which has no evidentiary value in law.
- No incriminating material directly connects him to the crime.
- No recovery is pending from him, so custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
Court’s Stand: Why Bail Was Denied
After reviewing the case, the Court rejected the defense's plea.
"The allegations against the petitioner are grave and prima facie disclose his active participation in a well-organized cyber-criminal syndicate engaged in systematic financial fraud."
Justice Kaul emphasized that the modus operandi showed a deliberate and premeditated plan to exploit victims’ fear and social vulnerabilities.
The Court ruled that:
- Just because an accused is not named in the FIR, it does not entitle him to anticipatory bail when the investigation reveals financial links to the crime.
- Delay in lodging the FIR is not a valid ground for bail, as victims often hesitate to report such incidents due to fear and shame.
- The co-accused’s disclosure statement, when supported by bank transactions, call records, and digital evidence, cannot be ignored.
"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."
In light of these findings, the Court dismissed the bail plea.
Mr. Satish Chudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Title: Tabrej @ Tarif v. Haryana
