Punjab-Haryana High Court
Utkarsh Dixit vs State Of Haryana on 23 February, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-8238-
8238-2026
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-8238-
8238-2026
Utkarsh Dixit
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
Date of decision: February 23,
23, 2026
Date of Uploading: February 23,
23, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.
Mr. Naveen Madan, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre anticipatory/pre-arrest bail, in case FIR No.72 72 dated 31.12.2024, 31.12.2024 registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') (Section 61(2)of the BNS added later on) on),, at Police ice Station Cyber Crime, Rewari.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant, namely Suresh Chander had moved a written complaint to the effect that on 26.12.2024, while he was at home, he came across a Facebook 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:21:13 ::: 2 CRM-
CRM-M-8238- 8238-2026 advertisement offering a part-time job. Using the contact number provided in the advertisement, he connected through Telegram, where he was assigned certain tasks and initially paid a small amount of money. Subsequently, he was asked to invest Rs.4,500/- with an assurance that he would receive Rs.6,300/- in return. However, when he attempted to withdraw the promised amount, he was repeatedly asked to make additional payments on the pretext of system errors and the need for further recharges. He was told that only after making additional investments would he be able to recover his money. Despite complying with these demands, he did not receive any payment. Instead, the fraudsters are now demanding Rs.3,00,000/- from him. The complainant requested to take legal action against the accused and, accordingly, FIR in question was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and there is not even an iota of evidence available with the prosecution to show complicity of the petitioner in the offence in question and/ or not even any allegation has been leveled against the petitioner. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure of co-accused. Learned counsel has further iterated that main accused, namely, Asim Afaque and Raj Gupta have already been afforded concession of regular bail by the Court below. Learned counsel has further argued that even the matter has been settled/ compromised between the petitioner and the complainant 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:21:14 ::: 3 CRM-
CRM-M-8238- 8238-2026 and, in this regard, an affidavit dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-2) of the complainant, is appended with the petition. 3.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating is to be recovered from him. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence, in case, he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Learned State counsel has argued that, in case, the petitioner is released on bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also intimidate/ interfere with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner along with his co-accused has defrauded/ cheated the complainant on the pretext of providing with some part-time job. The investigating agency is still in the process of gathering evidence for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant appears and submits that now the matter has been amicably settled between the parties as the complainant has received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the 3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:21:14 ::: 4 CRM-
CRM-M-8238- 8238-2026 petitioner, in cash, and the complainant has no objection, in case, the petitioner is afforded concession of regular bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
7. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question as also perusal of the impugned order show that the accused persons are alleged to have indulged in a well-planned cyber fraud by luring the complainant through a false online advertisement and inducing him to part with his hard-earned money on the pretext of providing a part-time job. Indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. 7.1. Vide order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to implead the complainant as party-respondent to the petition in hand given the matter stated to have been amicably resolved between the parties. 7.2. Even if it be assumed that a settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner-accused and the FIR-complainant, the same cannot be of any avail to the petitioner-accused. This Court had an occasion to deal with the offence(s) related to cyber fraud, in a case titled as CRM-
CRM-M-54453- 54453- 2025 - Badri Mandal & others versus State of Haryana and another another, decided on 12.11.2025, 12.11.2025 whereby quashing of the FIR, in that case, was sought on the basis of compromise having been effected between the parties therein. The relevant of the aforesaid reads thus:
"12. The contemporary felony of cyber fraud presents a transgression sui generis that mandates its categorical exclusion from the judicial indulgence for quashing of criminal proceedings solely on the basis of a compromise/settlement having been arrived at between the complainant/victim and the accused. Digital economy is the unassailable 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:21:14 ::: 5 CRM-
CRM-M-8238- 8238-2026 locus of modern commerce, sustained entirely by the bedrock of public trust. Cyber Fraud acts as a corrosive insurgency, causing not merely an isolated pecuniary loss, but an aggravated systemic damage upon the public financial exchequer, thereby inflicting profound in rem detriment. Owing to the anonymity, trans-border expanse and a propensity of causing substantial adverse impact, a court is compelled to look beyond the private settlement, lest it may tantamount to granting judicial imprimatur to an ongoing systemic threat. When such an offender escapes prosecution simply by offering post facto restitution, the penal measure is ipso facto converted into a mere calculus of profit and risk. The perpetrator of such an organized crime is emboldened to treat the compromise/settlement as a predictable expense, creating a deleterious lacuna in the law and gravely impacting the sanctity of criminal justice system. When a cyber fraud is perpetrated, the immediate and visible financial deceit/loss is only the tip of the spear; the real victim is the digital ecosystem itself. A private compromise/settlement between the rival private parties, i.e. the accused and the complainant/victim, is merely an ineffectual repudiation of individual liability, lacking utterly in addressing the cascading and unquantifiable institutional injury.
Pertinently, this Court is abundantly cognizant of the fact that the sine qua non behind a complainant/victim's assent to a compromise/settlement in cases of financial fraud remains the assured restitution of the monies of which she has been duped/criminally divested. This assurance of monetary indemnification acts as a sole allurement motivating her to participate in compromise/settlement proceedings. Nevertheless, such a compromise/settlement, having been arrived under the allurement of monetary restitution, is inherently incapable of ameliorating the inherent gravity and egregious nature of the offence of cyber fraud, which has the propensity of causing extensive public detriment and imparting a pernicious impact on the foundational trust, underpinning any commercial activity.
12.1. Another aspect nay vital aspect of the lis in hand craves attention.
The legal landscape is replete with cases where invocation of serious/grievous allegations pertaining to the stringent penal provisions (such as those relating to the offence of cyber fraud), constitute an instrument of premeditated hyperbole, scrupulously invoked to artificially inflate the gravity of allegations, otherwise rooted in pecuniary bilateral transactions. However, a more ruminated scrutiny reflects the inherent nature of transgression to be that of simpliciter cheating, conspicuously devoid of the ingredient of public detriment required of an offence pertaining to cyber fraud. In such a factual milieu, the rigid denial to exercise inherent powers as saved by way of Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to sanction an otherwise bona fide compromise/settlement of dispute(s), solely, because the FIR/Criminal Complaint is ridden with the allegations of cyber fraud, would tantamount to abdication of judicial duty, defeating the cause of substantial justice. For, it is an irrevocable judicial principle that a court, in its transcendent duty to ensure complete justice, must unflinchingly be cognizant of practical exigencies and social verities.
12.2. To determine as to whether offence(s) in question pertains to a situation where the allegations of cyber fraud have been made merely to lend severity or it is inherently a case of cyber fraud simplicter, the Court is, essentially, required to look into the entire factual milieu of the particular case in hand. No exhaustive set of guideline(s) to govern, the exercise of this aspect by the High Court, can possibly be laid down, however illecebrous this aspect may be. It is neither fathomable nor 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:21:14 ::: 6 CRM-
CRM-M-8238- 8238-2026 desirable to lay down any straightjacket formula in this regard. To do so would be to crystallize into a rigid definition, a judicial discretion, which for best of all reasons deserve to be left undetermined. Any attempt in this regard would be, to say the least, a quixotic endeavour. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact, may make a sea of difference between conclusions of two cases. Ergo, such exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent upon the factual matrix of the particular case which the High Court is in seisin of, since every case has its own peculiar factual conspectus.
13. As a sequitur of the above rumination, the following postulates emerge:
I. The inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court ought not be exercised for quashing of an FIR/Criminal Complaint, pertaining to the allegations of cyber fraud, solely on the basis of compromise/settlement. The pervasive public detriment and the systemic erosion of trust, irrevocably, supersedes, the purely private remedial adjustment, achieved between the complainant/victim and the accused. II. Where a meticulous judicial appraisal of facts reflects that the cyber fraud allegations have been strategically invoked to lend unwarranted gravity and seriousness to otherwise simpliciter pecuniary transaction interse the Complainant/victim and the accused, the Court must not permit the rigidity of law to defeat the ends of justice and may sanction the bona fide compromise/settlement to put an end to the lis. III. To effectually determine as to whether the case in hand falls within the ambit and scope of postulate (I) or postulate (II) (supra), the Court must undertake a scrupulous and granular scrutiny of the entire factual milieu of the case at hand.
No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid-down for exercise of aforesaid judicial discretion by a Court as every case has its own unique factual conspectus. There is no gainsaying that an order passed by the Court, while exercising such discretion, must be a speaking order clearly giving out reasons therein & must be in consonance with the basic canons of Justice, good conscience and equity."
7.3. Therefore, in case of a cyber-fraud, even if a compromise is stated to have been effected between rival parties, the same cannot be a basis, by itself, for accrual of benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner-accused.
8. It is befitting to mention here that adjudication of bail pleas, particularly in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitate a meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors. The paramount factor is the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offense, coupled with its potential societal ramifications. The proliferation of online frauds and cybercrimes 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:21:14 ::: 7 CRM-
CRM-M-8238- 8238-2026 poses a significant threat, as it systematically erodes public confidence in digital financial transaction platforms. Such erosion runs counter to the aspirations of an advanced and digitally empowered "Digital Bharat" and, thus, warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection. These offenses are characterized by their capacity to aggrieve a multitude of victims simultaneously, often with a single act of commission. The deleterious consequences of cybercrimes transcend individual boundaries, imperiling numerous unsuspecting citizens. The gravity of such transgressions cannot, therefore, be understated. They not only jeopardize the financial security and trust reposed by individuals in financial payment gateways and platforms, but also inherently expose the broader populace to analogous threats. Indeed, cybercrime in our nation operates akin to a silent virus -- insidious, disruptive, and exacting a toll on society that extends far beyond mere pecuniary loss, encompassing the bedrock of trust, security, and national progress.
8.1. Given the inherent nature and profound gravity of such offenses and their wide-ranging cascading effects on both society and financial institutions, this Court finds itself disinclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed for. To do otherwise would be to turn a Nelson's eye to the profound and far-reaching detrimental impact of these digital depredations.
9. Moreover, no cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:21:14 ::: 8 CRM-
CRM-M-8238- 8238-2026 case, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The investigation is at nascent stage. It is further befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 189, para 6) "6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third- degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
10. In view of the gravity of the allegations, nature of the offence and the requirement of custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:21:14 ::: 9 CRM-
CRM-M-8238- 8238-2026 investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
dismissed
11. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL) GOEL) JUDGE February 23, 23, 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 9 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 03:21:14 :::