Anticipatory bail denied where custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate cyberfraud’s broader network.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1/2026 (60000013/2026), registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Branch, for offences under Sections 318(4), 319 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The FIR arose from an allegation that the complainant and her husband had been defrauded of ₹29,17,000 through a purported investment scheme promoted through Facebook and the UHNWI application.

The fraudsters allegedly represented that the investment had generated profits of ₹3 crore and thereafter demanded an additional ₹49,77,544 for withdrawal of the projected profits.

Approximately ₹5,00,000 of the cheated amount was credited to a bank account held in the name of the applicant’s wife but allegedly operated by the applicant through his mobile phone.

The account was also used for receiving and transferring suspected proceeds of crime between 10 and 16 December 2025.

Approximately 16 NCRP complaints allegedly involved transactions through that account, concerning about ₹76,26,000.

The applicant claimed that he was himself a victim of a larger fraud and had permitted use of the account in connection with a loan transaction after being promised substantial profits.

He relied on an alleged contract with the principal accused and stated that he had filed a complaint under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) against them.

He also submitted that his wife, the account-holder, had already been granted anticipatory bail and that he was willing to join the investigation.

The State opposed the application, contending that the applicant had failed to join the investigation despite four notices, resulting in the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

It further submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the wider cyberfraud, including the 16 additional complaints.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations that he operated a bank account used to receive and transfer suspected proceeds of cyberfraud?

Whether the applicant’s plea that he was merely a victim of the principal fraudsters, together with his willingness to join the investigation and his wife’s grant of anticipatory bail, justified the grant of pre-arrest protection?

Whether the requirement of custodial interrogation was justified at the ongoing stage of investigation?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 318(4), 319 and 340 BNS and the principles governing anticipatory bail.

It emphasised that anticipatory bail is distinct from regular bail and that the distinction must be kept in view while assessing the seriousness of the alleged offence and the needs of investigation.

The Court further applied the principle that, in complex cyberfraud cases, custodial interrogation may be justified where it is necessary to uncover the vertical and horizontal extent of the fraud, identify the role of the accused and investigate linked transactions and complaints.

The applicant’s complaint under Section 173(4) BNSS and the grant of bail to his wife were treated as circumstances requiring consideration, but not as determinative of his entitlement to anticipatory bail.

The Court found that the allegations were not confined to the applicant’s passive association with the account: the account stood in his wife’s name but was operated through the applicant’s mobile phone, and his mobile number was used for receiving OTPs relating to that account.

The Court held that the applicant offered no reasonable explanation for allowing a third party to use the account credentials, particularly when the credentials belonged to his wife.

His assertion that he had acted out of greed or had been deceived in a loan transaction did not, at this stage, satisfactorily explain his conduct or exclude his involvement in the suspected transactions.

The Court also attached significance to the continuing investigation into approximately 16 other NCRP complaints and the alleged use of the account for handling substantial proceeds of crime.

Since the applicant had allegedly failed to join the investigation despite four notices and non-bailable warrants had been obtained, the State’s request for custodial interrogation was considered justified.

Given the wider economic and societal impact of organised cyberfraud and the need to investigate its complete extent, the Court concluded that pre-arrest protection would impede or dilute the investigation.

The applicant’s explanation that he was himself a victim, his willingness to join the investigation, and the anticipatory bail granted to his wife did not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations, his connection with the bank account, the existence of multiple linked complaints and the justified requirement of custodial interrogation.

Accordingly, BAIL APPLN. 3039/2026 and the accompanying applications were dismissed.