Anticipatory bail denied where custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the expanse of organized cyber frauds.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 46/2024 registered at PS Cyber Police Station (South) under Section 420 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was a key participant in a cyber fraud syndicate that lured victims through WhatsApp and Telegram groups with promises of remuneration for "online prepaid tasks"

The complainant was allegedly induced to deposit ₹3,51,470/- into various accounts

Investigation revealed that co-accused Golu provided bank account kits to the applicant in exchange for cash, and these accounts saw transactions exceeding ₹1.28 crore within a few days

The application had been pending since January 2025 across multiple benches and was transferred to the current bench for disposal

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail despite evidence of a high-volume cyber fraud and the necessity for custodial interrogation to unearth the conspiracy

The court primarily considered Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

While exercising its discretionary power for anticipatory bail, the court applied the principle that such relief may be denied when custodial interrogation is required to unearth the full extent of a complex fraud and where the accused's conduct indicates an attempt to delay proceedings

The court also considered the relevance of "adverse antecedents" and incriminating circumstantial evidence, such as call data records and financial transactions, in bail adjudications

The court first addressed the conduct of the applicant's counsel, noting that the repeated requests for adjournment and the absence of the advocates named in the vakalatnama suggested an intent to "drag the proceedings" while enjoying interim protection

On the merits, the court observed that the evidence against the applicant was not limited to the disclosure statement of a co-accused

The prosecution presented incriminating evidence of money transfers and an "unusual number" of 767 phone calls between the applicant and co-accused Golu over a four-month period

Furthermore, the court highlighted the scale of the operation, noting 142 separate cyber complaints linked to the bank accounts handled by the applicant and his involvement in two other similar criminal cases

Consequently, the court found that the Investigating Officer's requirement for custodial interrogation to "unearth the expanse" of the fraud was fully justified

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed

The court directed the applicant to surrender before the Investigating Officer (IO) by 05:00 PM on April 2, 2026