The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that partial return of defrauded money by an accused or the complainant turning hostile cannot, by itself, be a ground to grant bail in cybercrime cases involving threats, digital coercion, and inducement.
Calling such matters “crimes against society at large”, Justice Manisha Batra observed: “Irrespective of the fact that some money of the complainant has been returned by the petitioner and she had turned hostile, it cannot be considered to be a ground for extending benefit of regular bail to the petitioner.
Justice Batra was hearing a bail plea filed by a man accused of being part of a cybercrime gang that allegedly kept the victim under “digital arrest” and threatened her with criminal consequences while inducing her to part with Rs 6.85 lakh.
An FIR in the matter was registered on October 4, 2024, by Sonepat Cyber Crime police station. Justice Batra observed that the allegations in the case were serious, as the petitioner had not acted alone but was allegedly part of a larger gang whose kingpin remained at large.
“Keeping in view the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has remained a part of a gang whose kingpin has not yet been arrested… coupled with the fact that it is a classic case of cyber arrest thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and her hard-earned money… this Court is of the considered opinion that bail cannot be granted,” the Bench held.
Even though the petitioner’s family claimed to have returned Rs 3 lakh to the complainant and placed on record her statement to that effect, the court held that such a circumstance was not sufficient in view of the larger nature of the offence.
Referring to the growing tendency of people to indulge in “such like cases”, Justice Batra further noted that cybercrimes of this nature, which exploited fear and used digital tools to coerce victims into paying money, were on a rise and posed a threat beyond individual harm.
Pointing at the facts of the case in hand, Justice Batra added that the complainant’s subsequent resiling from her previous statement had no bearing on the case, especially when the petitioner’s involvement was backed by scientific evidence.
“Petitioner has been connected in this case on the basis of scientific investigation and telephone record. Due to resiling by the complainant, the allegations as levelled against him do not falsify,” the court observed.
It also took on record the State apprehension that the petitioner might either abscond or indulge in similar offences if released, before asserting the concern could not be disregarded at this stage. “The apprehension expressed by the respondent-State that the petitioner may indulge in similar offences or may abscond cannot be stated to be unfounded at this stage,” Justice Batra asserted, while dismissing the bail plea.
Click Here For The Original Source.
