E-Paper
Cyber fraud punishment not sufficiently deterrent: Punjab and Haryana high court
The court was dealing with a bail plea filed by Sanjay Singh, an accused in alleged cyber fraud of approximately ₹73 lakh involving Vikram Midha of Gurugram
The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that the existing legal framework and the punishment prescribed for cyber fraud offences do not appear to be “sufficiently deterrent”.
“Court deems it appropriate to express its concern over the alarming increase in cybercrime in the country, which has created a sense of apprehension amongst bank account holders that, at any point of time, the funds lying in their accounts may be siphoned off through fraudulent means, leaving them in a helpless and vulnerable situation,” the bench of justice Sanjay Vashisth observed. The bench directed that the judgment be sent to the directors general of police of Haryana, Punjab and Chandigarh, for circulation amongst the concerned cyber cells, dealing with the detection and investigation of cybercrime.
The court was dealing with a bail plea filed by Sanjay Singh, an accused in alleged cyber fraud of approximately ₹73 lakh involving Vikram Midha of Gurugram. The victim recovered ₹20 lakh after the matter was reported to cyber police in September 2025.
The petitioner had claimed that a WhatsApp link related to online trading was sent to him. Attracted by the prospect of making money, he clicked on the link and transferred money into different bank accounts.
Singh’s counsel Sagar Panghal submitted that the actual masterminds behind cyber fraud often remain beyond the reach of law enforcement, while account holders and intermediaries are arrested.
Such individuals allegedly provide their bank accounts for small amounts of money, following which lakhs or even crores of rupees are routed through those accounts. In several cases, the account holders themselves may not know who is actually operating the account or where the money is ultimately being transferred, the counsel submitted.
It was further claimed that of the five prosecution witnesses, only two had been examined. In view of the prolonged incarceration, regular bail to the petitioner be granted.
“…having regard to the growing menace of cybercrime and the serious consequences arising therefrom, existing legal framework and the punishment prescribed for such offences do not appear to be sufficiently deterrent,” the court remarked while granting bail to the accused, who was behind bars for 11 months. The court made it clear that if he is found involved in any similar offence in future, during the pendency of the trials in cases presently pending against him, he would not be entitled to seek bail in subsequent cases.
The prosecution is also directed to move an application in all such cases, in which he is currently on bail, if he is found involved in any similar offence in future, and bring the present order to the notice of the concerned courts.
