Gurugram, Haryana: Court Denies Bail to Two Cyber Fraud Accused, Cites Growing Threat of Online Crime

The court said cybercrimes were on the rise and those involved needed to be dealt with sternly and deserved no leniency.

Haryana, India : A Gurugram court has rejected the bail pleas of two men accused in separate cyber fraud cases, stressing the seriousness of online financial crimes and the growing threat they pose to public trust and financial security.

The court relied on observations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in an earlier cybercrime case, which described cybercrime as a silent and disruptive threat capable of causing significant harm to society. The court emphasised that the increasing number of cyber fraud cases requires authorities and the judiciary to deal with such offences seriously.

The two bail pleas were heard in separate proceedings this week. One involved Arvind Rao, who is accused of allegedly helping facilitate a cyber fraud worth ₹55.28 lakh. The second involved 22-year-old Saksham, who was arrested in connection with an alleged stock market investment scam involving ₹11.16 lakh.

₹55.28 lakh cyber fraud case

Additional Sessions Judge Varsha Jain was hearing the regular bail application of Arvind Rao, who was arrested on August 20, 2026.

According to the case details, Gurugram resident Manik Ahuja allegedly lost ₹55.28 lakh in a cyber fraud in April 2024. Following his complaint, an FIR was registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station (East) on April 14, 2025.

The case was registered under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

During the investigation, police allegedly found that ₹4.25 lakh of the defrauded money had been transferred to a bank account linked to Rao. He was subsequently arrested as investigators continued tracing the flow of the money.

Rao reportedly told investigators that he had handed over his bank account, cheque book and debit cards to another accused in exchange for a commission of ₹1,500.

Defence argues custody is not necessary

While seeking bail, Rao’s lawyer argued that the trial was likely to take considerable time. The defence maintained that the case largely depended on documentary and electronic evidence and that there was no further need for custodial interrogation.

The defence also argued that keeping Rao in custody for a prolonged period would serve little purpose when the relevant evidence was already available to investigators.

The prosecution, however, opposed the bail application.

According to the prosecution, Rao was allegedly involved in withdrawing cash and receiving a commission from the transactions. The prosecution also argued that his release could affect the investigation, particularly because police were still attempting to identify and arrest other people allegedly connected to the fraud.

Court highlights seriousness of cybercrime

After considering the arguments from both sides, the court rejected Rao’s bail plea.

While doing so, the court referred to an earlier judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which bail had been denied to another cybercrime accused. That judgment had highlighted the broader consequences of cybercrime, describing it as a threat that can operate quietly while damaging financial security, public confidence and wider economic activity.

The Gurugram court noted the increasing number of cybercrime cases and took into account the potential impact of such offences while considering the bail application.

Second bail plea also rejected

In a separate case, Additional Sessions Judge Sudeep Goel rejected the bail application of another accused, 22-year-old Saksham, on Wednesday.

Saksham is accused in an alleged stock market investment fraud in which Gurugram resident Shiv Chauhan reportedly lost ₹11.16 lakh last year.

According to the case, part of the allegedly defrauded money was transferred to an account linked to Saksham. Police arrested him on August 19, 2026, as investigators followed the financial trail.

Saksham subsequently returned ₹2.21 lakh to the complainant. Chauhan also told the court that he had no objection to Saksham being granted bail.

Defence cites age and repayment

Saksham’s lawyer, Shyam Babu Ambavata, argued that the accused should be granted bail because of his young age, the absence of any previous criminal record and the fact that he had returned the money received by him.

The defence maintained that these factors should be considered while deciding the bail application.

Despite the complainant expressing no objection and the partial repayment, the court declined to grant bail.

Court says repayment does not erase alleged offence

The court observed that cybercrime cases are increasing and that those allegedly involved in such offences need to be dealt with seriously.

It further held that simply returning the money allegedly involved in the fraud does not, by itself, remove or mitigate the seriousness of the alleged offence.

The bail plea was therefore dismissed.

Focus on rising cyber fraud

The two orders underline the challenges courts face while dealing with the growing number of cyber fraud cases involving bank accounts, digital transactions and online investment schemes.

Cybercriminals often use multiple bank accounts and intermediaries to move allegedly fraudulent funds, making it difficult for investigators to trace the entire transaction chain. In cases where several people are suspected of being involved, investigators may also need time to identify other participants and establish their respective roles.

The Gurugram court’s decisions also show that factors such as repayment of money, age or the absence of previous criminal cases do not automatically guarantee bail. Each application is considered on the circumstances of the individual case, including the allegations, evidence, stage of investigation and the potential impact of releasing an accused.

With cyber fraud continuing to generate complaints involving substantial sums of money, the cases have once again drawn attention to the need for careful investigation and stronger safeguards around digital financial transactions.

News source: Information for this article was gathered from a variety of reliable news outlets.