Anticipatory bail denied for POS operator accused of fraudulently activating SIM cards using customer identity documents.

The applicant, Sunil Kumar Kashyap, an authorized Point of Sale (POS) operator for Sunil Mobile, was accused of fraudulently activating 16 mobile SIM connections using the personal identification documents of customers without their consent.

A complaint was filed by Constable Shrikant Singh of the Cyber Cell after a preliminary inquiry revealed that customers, such as Akash Rao and Laxminarayan Aditya, had neither purchased nor used the SIMs registered in their names.

Consequently, Crime No. 582/2025 was registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan for alleged offenses of fraud and identity theft.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), claiming innocence and lack of criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail given the nature of the allegations involving identity theft and fraudulent SIM activation.

The court considered Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail.

The substantive charges were brought under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (now Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) regarding cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, which prescribes punishment for identity theft.

The court emphasized the principle that the gravity of the offense and the necessity of custodial interrogation for uncovering larger conspiracies are primary factors in bail adjudication.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and that the SIM cards were never used in any crime.

However, the court observed that the applicant, as an authorized POS holder, was entrusted with sensitive personal documents which he prima facie misused to activate multiple SIM cards.

The court noted the objection of the State counsel that investigation is at a "crucial stage" and custodial interrogation is necessary to determine the potential misuse of these cards and the existence of a larger conspiracy.

Applying these facts to the law, the court reasoned that the nature of cyber fraud and misuse of identity documents carries serious societal implications.

Given the specific role attributed to the applicant's unique POS code, the court found the material collected during investigation sufficient to deny discretionary relief.

The court directed the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.

The application was dismissed.