Last Updated on October 20, 2026 by Satish Mishra
Bailable vs. Non-Bailable Cyber Crime Bail -HighCourt
- Bailable Offenses: Minor cyber infractions under the IT Act (such as Section 66, 66C, or 66D, which carry punishments up to 3 years) generally grant an automatic right to bail. [1, 2]
- Non-Bailable Offenses: Severe offenses, cyber terrorism (Sec 66F IT Act), or cases coupled with BNS provisions—such as Section 318 (Cheating) or corporate data theft—require judicial discretion
Types of Bail Available in the High Court
- Anticipatory Bail (Section 482 BNSS): Applied for when an individual reasonably apprehends arrest in a non-bailable cyber offense. High Courts look at the depth of the digital evidence, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and whether the applicant has control over the system or bank accounts involved. [1, 2, 3]
- Regular Bail (Section 483 BNSS): Applied for after the individual is arrested and in custody. It is typically approached after a lower Sessions Court rejects the initial bail application
Key Legal Defenses and Arguments in Cyber Crime Bail-HighCourt
- Challenging Electronic Evidence: The defense frequently argues non-compliance with Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) (formerly Section 65B of the Evidence Act). If the police failed to properly secure digital footprints, IP logs, or hash values, the evidentiary link weakens.
- Mule Account Differentiation: In pan-India financial or UPI scams, many individuals are arrested simply because money passed through their accounts. If the defense can prove the applicant was a victim of identity theft, an unwitting “mule,” or lacked criminal intent (mens rea), the High Court may consider bail.
- Cooperation & Clean Antecedents: Demonstrating a clean criminal record, absolute willingness to join the investigation, and no risk of fleeing or tampering with digital logs are essential prerequisites. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Also Read-Reporting a Cyber Crime in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali
Introduction
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Preeti Kashyap v. State of Haryana, decided on 25 August 2026, dismissed a petition seeking regular bail in a cyber fraud case involving allegations of a so-called digital arrest, intimidation and fraudulent transfers exceeding ₹1 crore.
The Court observed that the allegations prima facie indicated the petitioner’s involvement in the operational layer of an organised cyber fraud. Considering the amount involved, the alleged manner of commission and the gravity of the accusations, the Court declined to grant bail.
1. Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 76 dated 16 September 2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Ambala, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
According to the complaint, an elderly retired woman received WhatsApp calls from persons impersonating officials of the Telecom Regulatory Authority and the Central Bureau of Investigation. She was allegedly told that her Aadhaar details had been used to open a bank account connected with a money-laundering investigation.
The callers allegedly threatened her with serious criminal consequences and instructed her not to disclose the matter to anyone. By keeping the complainant and her husband under what was described as “digital arrest” between 3 and 15 September 2025, the fraudsters allegedly induced them to transfer money.
The complainant reportedly transferred ₹50 lakh initially and subsequently raised a loan of ₹21 lakh against pledged gold ornaments. Through different bank transactions, the total amount allegedly transferred reached ₹1,05,50,000.
2. Allegations Against the Petitioner
During the investigation, the police traced ₹35 lakh from the complainant’s account to a beneficiary account associated with another accused. The amount was allegedly transferred further to other accounts and withdrawn in cash.
According to the prosecution’s case:
-
The petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused.
-
She allegedly obtained an insurance policy worth ₹1.42 lakh using money derived from the fraudulent transactions.
-
Investigators relied on a video recording in which she was allegedly seen with co-accused persons.
-
The prosecution alleged that she had received ₹5 lakh from the fraudulent transaction.
-
The investigation concerning her was stated to be complete.
The petitioner was arrested on 13 October 2025. These were prosecution allegations considered at the bail stage, not findings of guilt after trial.
3. Arguments Advanced for Bail
The petitioner’s counsel argued that she had been falsely implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement, which was challenged as legally inadmissible. It was also argued that she was not named in the original FIR and that no specific role had been attributed to her.
The defence further relied on the following circumstances:
-
The petitioner had remained in custody since 13 October 2025.
-
She had no criminal antecedents.
-
The investigation concerning her was complete.
-
The trial would take considerable time to conclude.
-
She was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
On these grounds, regular bail was sought under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
4. State’s Opposition and Supreme Court Directions
The State opposed bail, alleging that the petitioner had actively participated in a conspiracy with other accused persons and had received ₹5 lakh from the proceeds of the fraud. The prosecution also expressed concerns about the possibility of similar offences or absconding.
An additional argument concerned an order dated 17 November 2025 passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3 of 2025. The State submitted that the order contained directions concerning the release on bail of suspects or accused in such cases while investigation remained pending, with liberty to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate directions.
The High Court considered this submission along with the allegations and the overall circumstances of the case.
5. High Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found that the allegations, at the bail stage, indicated the petitioner’s alleged involvement in an organised cyber fraud in which the victim had been deceived through threats and the pretence of digital arrest.
The Court emphasised three considerations:
Magnitude of the alleged fraud: The total amount allegedly extracted from the complainant was ₹1,05,50,000.
Organised manner of commission: The allegations involved impersonation of official authorities, intimidation, multiple bank accounts and transfers of funds.
Prima facie role of the accused: The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was connected with the operation and had received part of the fraudulent proceeds.
The Court observed that cybercrimes of this nature affect unsuspecting citizens and undermine public confidence in digital platforms. It concluded that the seriousness of the allegations warranted a strict approach and dismissed the regular-bail petition.
6. Final Decision
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition for regular bail.
However, the Court expressly clarified that its observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Therefore, the order does not amount to a finding that the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offences.
7. Key Legal Takeaways
1. Gravity of cyber fraud matters in bail proceedings. The alleged amount involved, the method of intimidation and the accused’s prima facie role may weigh against the grant of bail.
2. Completion of investigation does not automatically guarantee bail. Although the defence relied on the completion of investigation and the period of custody, the Court considered the overall circumstances.
3. Digital arrest scams can involve multiple layers. The allegations in this case involved impersonation, threats, bank accounts, fund transfers and alleged distribution of proceeds.
4. Bail-stage observations are not a determination of guilt. The Court expressly reserved its opinion on the merits, leaving the issues to be decided in accordance with law.
5. Supreme Court directions must be read in their precise terms. The State relied on a Supreme Court order concerning bail in cybercrime cases. The present judgment records that submission but does not reproduce the complete Supreme Court order or independently set out its full scope.
Recent Judicial Trends (2025–2026)
- Strict Supreme Court Directives: The Supreme Court of India has routinely cracked down on organized cyber networks, calling fraudsters “parasites” and noting that societal interest often requires keeping cross-border digital scammers in custody during investigations.
- Tech-Specific Bail Conditions: When the High Court does grant bail, it imposes strict digital conditions. These frequently include surrender of electronic devices, bans on using VPNs, submitting live location coordinates via smartphones, and providing regular undertakings not to access specific digital infrastructure. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Also Read-2026 Cyber CRIME SOP-Accused Account Unfreeze
Conclusion
The decision highlights the cautious approach adopted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court while considering regular bail in an alleged organised cyber fraud involving a substantial financial loss and the intimidation of elderly victims through digital arrest tactics.
At the same time, the dismissal of bail is not a conviction. The allegations remain subject to adjudication in the criminal proceedings, and the Court’s express clarification preserves that distinction.
Case Reference: Preeti Kashyap v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No. 35609 of 2026, decided on 25 August 2026, Punjab and Haryana High Court.
By Satish Mishra, Advocate (99888-17966)
Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It summarises the cited judicial order and should not be treated as legal advice.
