[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovepreet Singh Alias Arshdeep Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 29 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-23709-2026 -1-
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-23709-2026
Date of decision: 29.04.2026
Lovepreet Singh @ Arshdeep Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner in case FIR No.47 dated 25.08.2025, under Sections
318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 61 of the BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station
Cyber Crime, Kaithal, Haryana.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR was
registered on the basis of complaints dated 01.08.2025 and 05.08.2025
submitted by one Iqbal Singh. It was informed that the complainant was
maintaining bank accounts in Axis Bank and PNB Bank. It was further
informed that on 06.07.2025, the complainant came across an
advertisement on Facebook regarding the stock market. Upon clicking on
the website named 'Axis Direct', the same opened, wherein, he shared all
the details like Pan Card, Aadhaar Card, Mobile number, etc. and
thereafter, his account/wallet was created. It was alleged that on
15.07.2025, when the complainant tried to open the app, the same did not
open. The complainant received a voice message on whatsapp informing
him that their trading company was offering an 8% profit margin and that,
if he wished to invest, they would guide him through the entire procedure
and also sent screen shots of all the process. On the same day, i.e. on
15.07.2025, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.102/- from his
Axis Bank to their disclosed bank account which reflected in his wallet.
Thereafter, he again transferred an amount of Rs.49,905/- to their account.
It was alleged that the complainant continued to invest money in the
stock market and such transfers were shown as reflected in his wallet. The
accused also sent fake SEBI certificates to induce the complainant for
further transfers. In total, the complainant transferred an amount of
Rs.60,50,000/- to different bank accounts on the basis of such fake SEBI
certificates. However, later on the complainant realized that he had been
cheated and thus, made complaint against accused persons. On the basis
of the complaint, the FIR was registered and investigation commenced.
During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he
was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Apprehending his arrest, the
petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kaithal praying for the grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing
both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kaithal declined the bail application filed by the
petitioner vide order dated 21.04.2026. Hence, being aggrieved, the
petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying
for the grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case.
He has submitted that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor there
is any evidence regarding his complicity in the alleged offence. He has
submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present FIR only
on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Anshul Thakur, which
is not even an admissible evidence. He has further submitted that the
matter has been compromised between the parties by way of compromise
deed dated 26.03.2026, wherein it was stated that the petitioner is not
involved in the said FIR. He has submitted that the petitioner has no
criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any other case. He
has thus, submitted that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State, however, has opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted
that complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie established during
the investigation conducted so far. He has submitted that during the
investigation conducted so far, it has been found that out of the aforesaid
amount of Rs.60,50,000/-, the amount of Rs.5,25,000/- was transferred in
the bank account of one Jasbir, who during investigation disclosed that he
had shared his bank account details with co-accused Anshul Thakur, in
good faith. He submits that co-accused Anshul Thakur further received an
amount of Rs.5,000/ as commission from the present petitioner for
providing the bank account details of Jasbir to him and the petitioner
received an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- in cash. He has submitted that the
petitioner has a direct connection with the transactions in question in the
offence committed. He has submitted that no case for the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out and thus, the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has
also opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
He has submitted that the complainant was cheated for an amount of
Rs.60,50,000/- by the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has a
direct connection with the transactions and the bank account of the
petitioner is indulged in online fraud. He has submitted that no case for
the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out and thus, the
present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record with their able assistance.
7. It has been transpired that complicity of the petitioner has
been prima facie established. The petitioner has been implicated in the
present FIR on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused
Anshul Thakur. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.60,50,000/-, an amount
of Rs.5,25,000/- was received in cash by the petitioner and thus, the
petitioner has a direct connection with the transactions in question in the
offence committed. Though the matter was allegedly compromised
between the parties but to unearth the whole racket of cyber fraud/cyber
criminals, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
Investigation in this case is still going on. Needless to say that such like
offences, i.e. cyber crimes are on rise.
8. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory
parameters are given under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 which reads as under:-
"Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending
MAMTA arrest:-
Where any person has reason to believe that he may be
arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-
bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the
Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that
Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such
arrest, he shall be released on bail.
When the High Court or the Court of Sessions makes a
direction under sub-section (1), it may include such
conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the
particular case, as it may think fit, including-
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India
without the previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under
sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were
granted under that Section.
9. As per law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, while
granting anticipatory bail, the Court is to maintain a balance between the
individual liberty and the interest of society. However, the interest of the
society would also prevail upon the right of personal liberty. The relevant
part of the judgment is as follows:-
31.In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed
accusation appears to stem not from motives of
furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior
motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the
applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the
release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest
would generally be made. On the other hand, if it
appears likely, considering the antecedents of the
applicant, that taking advantage of the order of
anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order
would not be made. But the converse of these
propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it
cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that
anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed
accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and,
equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is
no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are
several other considerations, too numerous to
enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh
with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory
bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed
charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the
making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the
applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a
reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be
tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or
the state" are some of the considerations which the
court has to keep in mind while deciding an application
for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these
considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit
Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622, which, though, was a case
under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the
present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount
consideration to remember that the freedom of the
individual is as necessary for the survival of the society
as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A
person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man
entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing
to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance
of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in
consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall
be enlarged on bail.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997)
7SCC 187, held as under:-
6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well
ensconced with a favorable 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.
11. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled,
it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie
found. Allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature.
MAMTA Needless to say, the investigation is at the initial stage and in the facts and
circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be essential
and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle
the ongoing investigation.
12. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner does not qualify for the grant of anticipatory bail and the same
is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
29.04.2026 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
