Mohamad Naseem @ Mohmand Naseem vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The primary reasoning was based on the serious nature of the cyber fraud, which caused a loss of Rs. 33,16,700/- to the complainant. The Court noted that the investigating agency had collected evidence prima facie establishing a link between the crime and the petitioner, specifically that the bank account used for siphoning proceeds of the crime was linked to the petitioner's mobile number. The Court emphasized that denying the valuable right of custodial interrogation to the investigating agency could severely set back the investigation. It reiterated the principle that the remedy of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted routinely. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, and Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punjab, the Court stressed that anticipatory bail is a discretionary power to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases, especially when there is a legitimate case for remand or to secure incriminating material. The Court found no extraordinary circumstances warranting the exercise of this jurisdiction in the present case. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohamad Naseem, is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 10 dated 11.08.2025, lodged at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Panchkula, under Sections 318(4) & 319 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered based on a complaint by Ravi Gupta, an advocate, who alleged being defrauded of Rs. 33,16,700/- through a cryptocurrency investment scam initiated via Facebook Messenger. The complainant was lured by a lady named Aachal Rao @ Ammu. During the investigation, bank accounts used to siphon funds were frozen. An IDFC Bank account (first layer) received Rs. 17,00,000/-, from which Rs. 7,90,000/- was transferred to an EQUITAS Bank account (second layer). This second account was opened in the name of Akashdeep Singh. Akashdeep Singh, upon arrest, disclosed that he opened another bank account in Kotak Mahindra Bank at the request of Gaurav and Mohamad Naseem (the petitioner), who claimed they needed it to receive a GST refund. Akashdeep Singh further stated that on 15.07.2025, he, along with Naveen, Anmol, Gaurav, and Mohamad Naseem, withdrew Rs. 9,00,000/- from this account and handed it over to Gaurav and Mohamad Naseem. The mobile number linked to Akashdeep Singh's Kotak Mahindra Bank account belonged to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of his involvement in a cyber fraud involving a substantial amount of money? The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is innocent, has no nexus with the crime, and is a law-abiding citizen who had travelled abroad. They contended that the petitioner's name does not appear in the FIR, and the only evidence against him is the disclosure statement of a co-accused. Furthermore, it was argued that the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate with a maximum punishment of seven years, making the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar applicable, and that the police are attempting to arrest him without issuing notice. The State counsel argued that the petitioner is the kingpin of the cybercrime racket and that the evidence against him is not solely based on disclosure statements but also includes other clinching evidence. They asserted that the mobile phone number used by the main accused belongs to the petitioner, and his presence outside the bank during the withdrawal of funds proves his active involvement. The State also contended that notice had been served on the petitioner through his brother, but he is not cooperating, and his custodial interrogation is crucial for unearthing the truth.