Anticipatory bail denied in digital arrest fraud where money trail links applicant’s bank account to defrauded funds.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 345/2025 involving a "digital arrest" scam.

The complainant was deceived by individuals posing as SBI and Delhi Police officials, who alleged she was involved in money laundering.

Inducing fear, they persuaded her to transfer ₹22,83,65,000/- to various bank accounts for "verification".

The applicant’s bank account was identified in the money trail.

The applicant argued his account was hacked and that he had reported the unauthorized transactions to the Cyber Crime Cell, while the State opposed the bail, noting that similar applications by co-accused persons had already been rejected.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the gravity of the financial fraud and the existing money trail.

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

Sections 318(4) (cheating) and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

In matters of serious economic offences and cybercrime, the nature and gravity of the accusations, the stage of investigation, and judicial parity (denial of bail to co-accused) are critical factors in exercising discretionary power.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the "digital arrest" fraud involving a massive sum of over ₹22 crores.

While the applicant claimed to be a victim of hacking and cited cooperation with the investigation, the Court emphasized the "money trail reflecting transfer of the defrauded amount through the applicant's bank account".

The Court further noted that the investigation is ongoing.

Applying the principle of consistency, the Court highlighted that anticipatory bail for co-accused persons, Mohd. Nazar and Mohd. Suhail, had been rejected by the same Court in MCRCA No. 783 of 2026 on 17.06.2026.

Consequently, the Court found the severity of the allegations and the applicant's link to the funds outweighed the arguments for personal liberty at this stage.

The application under Section 482 of the BNSS was rejected.