Anticipatory bail denied in cryptocurrency fraud where bank official’s role in facilitating accounts requires custodial interrogation.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 33/2026 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Branch, Bhopal, for offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant alleged he was induced by individuals posing as "Ananya Sharma" and others via Facebook/WhatsApp to invest in a cryptocurrency scheme promising high returns.

The complainant transferred approximately Rs. 92,00,735/- into various bank accounts as instructed.

The applicant, an employee at AU Small Finance Bank, was implicated because one of the bank accounts used for the fraudulent transactions was opened during his tenure.

The applicant argued he was falsely implicated, as there was no direct communication between him and the victim, nor did he receive any personal financial gain.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in a case involving organized cyber fraud and economic offence.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

The settled legal principle that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary relief and is not to be granted where custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.

Economic offences constitute a separate class of crime, characterized by deep-rooted conspiracies and significant social/financial impact, necessitating a more stringent approach toward bail.

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations, noting that the case involves a "serious and well-planned cyber fraud".

the court observed that the investigation is still ongoing and the applicant's precise role in facilitating the operation of the fraudulent accounts is yet to be fully determined.

The court rejected the applicant's contention that documentary evidence alone sufficed for investigation, agreeing with the State that electronic evidence, digital devices, and technical data recovery necessitate custodial interrogation.

It held that the nature of economic offences requires an unhindered investigation to uncover the extent of the conspiracy.

It held that given the gravity of the economic offence, the stage of the investigation, and the requirement for custodial interrogation to ascertain the applicant's specific role, it was not a fit case for exercising discretionary powers under Section 482 of the BNSS.