Anticipatory bail denied in economic offences involving cyber fraud where custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation.

The applicants, employees of HDFC Bank and a Health Insurance Company respectively, sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 135/2026

The prosecution alleges that the applicants conspired with co-accused Lokesh Tiwari to induce an individual to open "mule" bank accounts at Bank of Maharashtra and Kotak Mahindra Bank

These accounts, along with others, were allegedly used for fraudulent transactions totaling ₹2,35,07,010/-

The applicants are accused of receiving funds to facilitate the physical transport of bank account kits to other members of the syndicate via passenger bus

The applicants contended they were falsely implicated based solely on co-accused statements without financial trail evidence

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in light of allegations involving organized cyber fraud and economic offense

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail

Sections 318(4), 317(2), 317(4), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022

Economic offenses constitute a "distinct class" requiring a stricter approach due to their impact on the financial system and public confidence

The principle that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be balanced against the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation in complex conspiracies

The Court examined the material in the case diary, including memorandum statements of co-accused which prima facie linked the applicants to the syndicate

Although the applicants argued they had clean antecedents and stable employment, the Court found that the magnitude of the financial fraud (over ₹2.35 crore) and the ongoing nature of the investigation outweighed these personal factors

The Court reasoned that because the applicants allegedly facilitated the coordination of "mule" accounts, custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the complete modus operandi, trace the fund flow, and recover electronic devices

The Court noted that in economic offenses involving organized fraud, the need for a fair and effective investigation justifies the denial of extraordinary discretionary relief

The application filed by Hitesh Nath Gosai and Manoj Kumar Sahu was rejected

The Court underscored that willingness to cooperate intermittently does not substitute the requirement for custodial interrogation in serious financial conspiracies