Rahulpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab
2026 Latest Caselaw 2974 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rahulpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2026

           CRM-M-4037-2026                               1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


           110
                                                                CRM-M-4037-2026
                                                                Date of decision: 02.04.2026

           Rahulpreet Singh
                                                                                            ......Petitioner
                                                          Versus
           State of Punjab
                                                                                           .....Respondent

           CORAM:              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
           Present:            Mr. Karamjit Singh Maangat, Advocate for the petitioner.
                               Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG, Punjab.
           AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J (ORAL)

1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.15 dated 30.10.2025 registered

against him, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS

registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Batala, Police District Batala, District

Gurdaspur, has filed the instant petition, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail.

2. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this petition are being taken

from para 5 of the Status report filed by way of affidavit dated 19.02.2026 of

Manoj Kumar, DSP, Crime against Women and Children, Batala, Police District

Batala, District Gurdaspur on behalf of respondent-State, which read as under:

"5. That, the deponent humbly submits that the brief facts of the case are that the present FIR case was registered on the statement of the complainant namely Harpreet Singh son of Darshan Singh, who stated that he is working as Chef in the restaurant and had opened a bank account No.110187509374, IFSC Code No.CNRB0006615, in Canara Bank Branch Thikriwal Road Qadian after accompanying his brother-in- law (Jija) namely Rahulpreet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh. Complainant further stated that at the time of opening account a mobile Sim No.8699863925 issued in his name which was attached to his bank account was taken by his brother-in-law Rahulpreet Singh who told MANOJ KUMAR complainant that he would make the transactions in the bank account

which could facilitate the complainant for his immigration purpose. It has been further revealed later on that Rs.10,000/- which has been credited on 17.08.2024 into his account regarding that one complaint No.21404250004687 on helpline No. 1930 has been filed by one Kausar Hussain resident of Doda, Jammu & Kashmir on 10.12.2024 regarding committing fraud with him. Complainant further stated that his bank account is being handled by his brother-in-law namely Rahulpreet Singh. After receipt of complaint, the matter was inquired into and it is emerged during the inquiry by the Cyber Crime Cell Batala that the account in question is "Mule Account", which in fact belongs to Harpreet Singh (complainant), but handed by his brother-in-law (Jija) Rahulpreet Singh. The petitioner/accused Rahulpreet Singh convinced Harpreet Singh to handover the ATM card and the Sim card (8699863925), linked to the account claiming the account would be used to "show money" for complainant's future immigration. It is pertinent to mention here that upon receipt of the account statement and on its analysis, investigating agency found massive flow of funds totalling Rs.26,43,565/- between 15.08.2024 till 31.10.2024. Thus, transactions primarily involved net banking and payments to gaming entities."

Based on the said complaint, criminal proceedings were initiated vide

aforesaid FIR.

It further emerges from the documents on record that during the

course of investigation. Statement of Account No.110187509374, (IFSC Code

No.CNRB0006615), in Canara Bank (Branch Thikriwal Road Qadian) was

obtained, which revealed that from 15.08.2024 to 31.10.2024, Rs.26,34,021/- were

debited through net banking. At present also, Rs.9,544/- are lying in the said

account.

Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved an application for grant of

pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The same

came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2026. Aggrieved of which, the

present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the present case only on account of prior enmity between him

(p) and complainant. Sister of complainant is married to petitioner. Complainant

did not approve of this alliance and was on the look-out of an opportunity to settle

scores with petitioner, hence the present criminal proceedings. Further the fact

that FIR was lodged after unexplained delay of more than 12 months suggests that

the facts have been twisted and colored version has been portrayed. It is next the

submission of learned counsel that complaint is totally silent as to when the

alleged ATM Card and SIM Card were handed over to petitioner. Further, the

allegation of the complainant that petitioner misused his (p) account also remains

unsubstantiated; there being no incriminating material to second the said

allegation. With a view to falsely implicate the petitioner, complainant might have

himself misused his saving account. Towards the end, learned counsel contends

that petitioner is willing to join the investigation as and when called for. Prayer

for allowing the petition has been made.

4. Per contra, while opposing the request for grant of pre-arrest bail,

learned State counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to para 7 of the Status

report, wherein the role of the petitioner has been highlighted. Investigating

Officer, after conducting preliminary inquiry was of the opinion that petitioner is

the person who had been actively operating "Mule" bank account, which was used

as conduit for siphoning the fund obtained through online fraud. Statement of

account pertaining to the concerned Account number, when collected from the

Canara Bank (Branch Thikriwal Road Qadian) revealed that from August 2024 till

October 2024, an amount of Rs.26,34,021/- was credited therein, which was

subsequently withdrawn through net banking transaction. Continuing further, learned

counsel submits that in fact a complaint was lodged by Kausar Hussain, resident of

Doda, Jammu & Kashmir regarding fraudulent transfer of Rs.10,000/- into the said

account. The bank analysis reflects that "Mule" account processed approximately

Rs.26,43,565/- within few months, indicating large scale fraudulent activity and

organized cybercrime operations. Summing up his arguments, learned counsel prays that

custodial interrogation of petitioner is needed to recover the amount, to find out the

whereabouts of other accused, who all are involved in this racket and who are still

at large, what is their modus operandi, how many unsuspecting innocent persons

have been deprived of their hard earned money etc. Thus, prayer for dismissal of

the petition has been made.

5. Before expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions

raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, it would be

appropriate to refer to certain relevant judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court,

wherein the factors to be kept in mind while dealing with an application for grant

of anticipatory bail, have been discussed.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, ((2020) 13 SCC 791), has observed as under:-

"67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C 1973 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy."

Hon'ble the Supreme Court while deciding the case titled as "Ms. X Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another", (2023 SCC Online SC 279) held as under:-

"11.1. We propose to take a quick look at the considerations that ought to govern grant of anticipatory bail. There are a line of decisions of this court that have underscored the fact that while deciding an application for bail, the court ought to refrain from undertaking a detailed analysis of the evidence, the focus being on the prima facie issues including consideration of some reasonable grounds that would go to show if the accused has committed the offence or those facts that would reflect on the seriousness of the offence. The self-imposed restraint on delving deep into the analysis of the evidence at that stage is for valid reasons, namely, to prevent any prejudice to the case set up by the prosecution or the defence likely to be taken by the accused and to keep all aspects of the matter open till the trial is concluded. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkars case (supra) (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee and another), a Division Bench of this Court had highlighted the factors that ought to be borne in mind while considering the anticipatory bail application and had stated that :-

9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable.

It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv)danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. The

State of Maharashtra and another, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that "Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner."

6. Facts leading to registration of the case have already been noticed in para 2 of this order. In fact, accusations against the petitioner are two folds; firstly from the complaint lodged by the complainant, it is apparent that petitioner, who is married to the sister of the complainant had deceived him (c) on the false pretext that opening a bank account would facilitate his (c) immigration. At the time of opening the account, SIM bearing No.8699863925, which was attached to the said account was taken by the petitioner by assuring complainant that the transactions in the bank account would be helpful. Complainant got taken in, and handed over his ATM and SIM Card to petitioner, thus although the account stood in the name of the complainant, it was practically being controlled and operated by the present petitioner. It was also found by the Investigating Agencies that Rs.10,000/- were credited into this account regarding which a complaint had been filed by one Kausar Hussain. When complainant was questioned, he at the first stage submitted that bank account is being handled by his brother-in-law i.e present petitioner. When the matter was further inquired into by the Cyber Crime Cell, it came to the notice of the Authorities that the account in question is "Mule" account, which is though in the name of complainant, but is being handled by the present petitioner. As noted earlier, Investigating Agencies also found that from August, 2024 to October 2024, Rs.26,34,021/- was credited in the said account, which was subsequently withdrawn through net banking transaction.

It is apparent that the petitioner by taking undue advantage of his close familial relationship with the complainant, misused the complainant's SIM bearing No.8699863925, which was attached to the said bank account. It also emerged that the petitioner had fraudulently procured and operated the "Mule" bank account, thereby enabling himself to conduct unauthorized online transactions through the said account. It is evident that the petitioner played an active and instrumental role in the misuse of the bank account for unlawful purposes. The material on record clearly indicates deliberate and calculated misconduct on the part of the petitioner, who does not deserve the concession of bail.

Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is needed to recover the money which he had taken from complainant as also to find out the whereabouts of other accused, who all are involved in this racket and who are still at large,

what is their modus operandi, how many unsuspecting innocent persons have been

deprived of their hard earned money etc. As the investigation is at the preliminary stage and same shall be hampered and impeded in case the accused is released on anticipatory bail.

8. Agreeing with the submissions made by learned State counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Dismissed.

           02.04.2026                                       ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY )
           manoj                                                    JUDGE
                                    Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
                                    Whether Reportable: Yes/No