Anticipatory bail denied in organized cyber fraud involving bank account facilitation for multi-crore illegal transactions.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 33/2026

The prosecution alleged that a co-accused, M.D. Tavrej, opened a bank account in the applicant's name in exchange for ₹8,000, which was then used to facilitate cyber fraud

An investigation and a personal affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer revealed that approximately ₹7 Crores from various victims across different states had been routed through the applicant’s account

the applicant's memorandum statement indicated he had procured SIM cards and dispatched bank documents via courier to co-conspirators in Rajasthan

The applicant contended he was a victim of circumstances with no involvement in the fraud

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in light of allegations of organized cyber financial fraud

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest

The substantive charges fell under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 61(2)(A) (criminal conspiracy), and 111 (organized crime) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The decision hinged on established judicial principles for anticipatory bail, which require the court to balance individual liberty against the gravity of the offence, the magnitude of the fraud, and the stage of the investigation

The Court analyzed the applicant's role beyond his claim of being a mere account holder. It noted the Investigating Officer’s affidavit, which detailed the applicant's active participation in procuring SIM cards and couriering bank kits to a "Ravi Teja" in Jaipur

The Court found that the transaction of ₹7 Crores through the applicant's account established a prima facie link to a large-scale, organized financial crime

The Court reasoned that the organized and planned nature of the offence, spanning multiple states, necessitated a higher threshold for bail.

Because the investigation was ongoing and the applicant’s memorandum statement directly corroborated his facilitating role in the conspiracy, the Court determined that custodial interrogation or further restraint was justified to unearth the full extent of the fraud

The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the application for anticipatory bail