Balancing an accused’s right to personal liberty with the interests of cyber-fraud victims, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed an accused to deposit Rs 4.60 lakh—allegedly part of the fraud proceeds—as a condition for bail, while permitting the amount to be released to affected parties.
The order came on a petition filed by the accused arrested in a case registered by Chandigarh’s Cyber Crime Police Station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, Rs 4.60 lakh and another Rs 18,000, allegedly arising out of a cyber crime, were credited to the petitioner’s bank account. While the larger amount was subsequently withdrawn, the petitioner informed the court that he had already returned Rs 18,000 and was willing to deposit the remaining Rs 4.60 lakh with the investigating officer within a week.
Accepting the undertaking, Justice Jagmohan Bansal directed the petitioner to deposit the amount as a condition for grant of bail.
The court further observed that the investigating officer would be at liberty to release the deposited amount to the complainant as well as other affected parties.
“The present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed subject to deposit of conceded amount of Rs 4,60,000 with the Investigating Officer within a week from today. The Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to release the said amount to the complainant as well as other affected parties," Justice Bansal observed.
The ruling assumes significance as it seeks to accommodate two competing concerns often arising in financial and cyber-crime cases — safeguarding the interests of victims while protecting the constitutional right to liberty of an accused awaiting trial.
“As prosecution has right to arrest, investigate the matter and restrain an accused from manipulating or winning over witnesses, similarly accused in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody,” Justice Bansal asserted.
Granting bail, the Bench noted that the petitioner had been in custody since January 18, was not involved in any other criminal case, and that the police report had already been filed with charges framed.
The court also took note of the pace of the trial, observing that only one of the nine prosecution witnesses had been partially examined so far, leaving little possibility of the proceedings concluding in the near future.
Referring to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the Supreme Court’s observations in the Satender Kumar Antil case on overcrowding of prisons with undertrial prisoners, the Bench reiterated that arrest and detention curtailed liberty and must be justified by legitimate concerns such as securing an accused’s presence during trial, preventing interference with evidence or witnesses, or averting the possibility of further offences.
Justice Bansal observed that the prosecution had not placed convincing material before the court to indicate that the petitioner was likely to flee from justice, tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail.
Allowing the petition, the Bench clarified that the State would be free to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner, his family members or associates attempted to threaten or intimidate witnesses. It also made it clear that the observations in the order were confined to the issue of bail and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
