Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amritpal Singh Alias Doctor vs State Of Punjab on 26 February, 2026

CRM-M-71893--2025 (O&M)                         1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                                     CRM-M-71893-2025
                                                                 2025 (O&M)

AMRITPAL SINGH @ DOCTOR

                                                                          ...
                                                                           .. Petitioner

                                      Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                                         ...Respondent
1           The date when the judgment is reserved                20.02.2026
2           The date when the judgment is pronounced              26.02.2026
3           The date when the judgment is uploaded on the         26.02.2026
            website
4           Whether only operative part of the judgment is        Full
            pronounced or whether the full judgment is
            pronounced
5           The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full       Not applicable
            judgment and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:      Mr.
               r. G.S. Nahel, Advocate for the petitioner

              Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab


                          ****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.05 No.05 dated 19.06.2025 registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 336(2), 336(3) and 338 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS")) and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, at Police Station Cyber Crime, Mansa, District Mansa.

1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 03:15:34 ::: CRM-M-71893--2025 (O&M) 2

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the complainant Jagsir Singh alleging that cyber fraud had been committed with him and he was cheated of an amount of Rs.32,69,182/-.. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that on the pretext of promotion of rental property via website www.gorentalsnow.com, www.gorentalsnow.com, fraud was committed upon him. During the course of investigation, all the bank accounts in which money from the bank account of the complainant was credited/transferred credited/transferred, were verified. It was revealed that an amount of Rs.11,72,123/-

Rs.11,72,123/ was credited into the bank account maintained with City Union Bank by one Vikas. An amount of Rs.9,38,927/ Rs.9,38,927/--

was found credited from the above mentioned mentioned bank account of Vikas in another bank account maintained with HDFC Bank, SAS Nagar, Mohali Branch operative in the name of one Atul. In the said account, there was reference of name of Amritpal i.e. the present petitioner, CCTV footage of the HDFC Bank nk had also been collected and it was revealed that on 31.05.2025 31.05.2025, accused Atul and the petitioner alongwith 02 unknown persons had withdrawn the aforementioned amount from the HDFC bank account through cheque. Accused Amritpal was nominated as accused whereas whereas Atul above named was made as an approver. The petitioner was arrested on 28.10.2025. As per the further allegations, the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement admitting that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.9,49,000/-

Rs.9,49,000/ from HDFC Bank, Sector 15 15,, Panchkula from the account of Atul Kumar through cheque and had given the said amount to Sanjeev Kumar, who had given him 10% commission and the remaining amount was kept by him. On his disclosure, disclosure other persons were nominated.

2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 03:15:34 ::: CRM-M-71893--2025 (O&M) 3 Investigation qua the petitioner's petitioner's stands concluded and challan has been presented in the Court.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. No amount of money has ever been deposited in his his bank account. The identity of the actual offender is unknown. He is roped in only on the basis of suspicion. There is no direct or indirect evidence to link him with the commission of the subject offences. His linkage with the case is not based on aany ny digital trail, CCTV or any documentary evidence. He has been nominated on the basis of the statement of Atul who has not been arrayed as accused. There is no CCTV footage to show his is presence. The allegations to this effect are based on unverified police lice assertions. As per the allegations allegations, he had used Binance App for transaction but no certified digital evidence has been procured against him. The money trail is completely unsubstantiated. There is no documentary proof of transfer of money from the accounts of accused to the account of Atu Atull or to the present petitioner. There is no call detail record to show that he had ever communicated with the complainant. He is not required for further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. He is on bail bail in other cases as registered against him and cannot denied benefit of bail due to his involvement in such cases. There are no chances of conclusion of trial in the near future. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 03:15:34 ::: CRM-M-71893--2025 (O&M) 4

4. Per contra, learned State counsel while relying upon the status report has argued that the petitioner was an active participant in the commission of the subject offences. An amount of Rs.9,39,000/ Rs.9,39,000/- which was transferred in the bank account of Atul, was withdrawn awn by him, the co co-accused accused Atul and one unknown person as on 31.01.2025 from the HDFC Bank Bank, Sector 15 Panchkula Branch. While showing the CCTV footage to this Court, learned State counsel has argued that the active complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offences in question is, is prima facie established. He is a habitual offender. There are chances of his committing similar offences or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have been a member of the cyber crime syndicate, indulged in cheating public persons by subjecting them to victims of cyber fraud. The allegations against the petitioner are that he alongwith Atul had gone to withdraw a sum of Rs.9,39,000/-

Rs.9,39,000/ which was transferred from the bank account of the complainant to the account of co co-accused Atul and the said amount of money had been subsequently given by him to the co co-accused accused Sanjeev Kumar in lieu of 10% of share/commission. The petitioner has been linked with this case on the basis of statement recorded by one Atul who was turned approver. The CCTV footage shows his presence alongwith the co-- accused at HDFC Bank Sector 15 Panchkula Branch as on 31.05.2025 and is 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 03:15:34 ::: CRM-M-71893--2025 (O&M) 5 prima facie sufficient to prove his complicity in the commission of the offence of cyber crime. The petitioner is facing trial in one case of dacoity and one case of similar nature and hence his antecedents are not clean. Cyber crimes rimes are on the rise and nd have become a growing menace in today's digital age. Cyber criminals are using sophisticated methods methods to target public persons and institutions. A stringent stringent approach for deterring the offenders is required. Every day, one comes across instances where the hard hard-earned earned money of innocent citizens is siphoned off by organized groups of online fraudsters. Su Such ch offences not only cause financial loss to individual victim but also undermine public confidence in the security of digital transactions. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail bail. Accordingly, finding no ground to allow the petition, the same is is dismissed.

7. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case

8. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 26.02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 27-02-2026 03:15:34 :::