Crypto excuse won’t do: HC raps ‘incompetent’ cyber probes, makes bail absolute
The bench also made it clear that courts alone could not plug the gaps in cybercrime enforcement without robust regulatory backing
Coming down heavily on glaring investigative lapses in tackling cyber frauds, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that police officials probing such cases are apparently “incompetent or constrained” due to lack of awareness about evolving cybercrime techniques.
“It appears that the police officials/investigating officers in such cases are either incompetent or constrained due to a lack of awareness/knowledge regarding fraudulent activities and the methods employed by cybercriminals in the present era,” Justice Sanjay Vashisth asserted.
The bench also made it clear that courts alone could not plug the gaps in cybercrime enforcement without robust regulatory backing, while calling upon lawmakers and the administration to urgently address the grey areas leading to economic loss.
Pushing the concern beyond the case at hand, Justice Vashisth added: “Law makers and the administration of the country need to look into these grey areas to avoid any further loss to the economy, which belongs to the nation and its citizens. While the administration needs to address these issues, courts alone are also limited in effectiveness unless adequate regulatory laws are in place.”
The observations came during the hearing of a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered at the Cyber police station, Narnaul, under provisions of the BNS. Counsel Aditya Sanghi and Shivam Jindal submitted that petitioner had already undergone incarceration for over a year as he had been in judicial custody since October 29, 2024
Sanghi submitted the allegations were that Rs 1,14,43,326 was credited in certain bank accounts/passbooks allegedly recovered from the petitioner’s possession. Yet, there was no material on record to indicate where the amount was presently lying or whether it had been withdrawn by the petitioner or any other person.
Even when specifically queried, the state — assisted by the investigating officer — could offer only a vague explanation that the amount “may have been siphoned to some other account through cryptocurrency, i.e., via USDT”.
Justice Vashisth found the response wholly unsatisfactory, particularly in the face of the prosecution’s claim regarding recovery of multiple ATM cards, passbooks and cheque books. The defence, on the other hand, asserted that these pertained to other FIRs. “The petitioner is not an accused in any other case, including those referred to,” Sanghi added. Before parting with the order, Justice Vashisth confirmed the interim bail earlier granted.
