Anticipatory bail granted where documents prima facie supported claim that a finance company used the petitioner’s bank account.

A complaint alleging an online share-investment fraud led to registration of Crime No. 181/2026 against an unknown person for offences under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, and Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The first informant said he had transferred approximately ₹1,98,68,611 to accounts identified by administrators of a WhatsApp group; some money was transferred to the petitioner’s account.

After receiving an enquiry notice, the petitioner claimed that Next Zen Finance had used his account under an agreement connected to a proposed loan, and that he had also complained against the company to police in Kozhikode.

The Sessions Court rejected his anticipatory-bail application on 5 August 2026, after which he petitioned the High Court.

The petitioner had no other criminal antecedents and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in Crime No. 181/2026, given that funds allegedly connected to the fraud had been transferred to his bank account and he claimed the account had been used by Next Zen Finance.

2. If anticipatory bail were granted, what conditions were appropriate to secure the petitioner’s participation in the investigation and trial.

The petition sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the petition heading also describes the application as one under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

The alleged offences were under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, and Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court noted that money had reached the petitioner’s account, but considered his explanation that Next Zen Finance had been permitted to use the account under an agreement and that he had complained against that company after receiving the enquiry notice.

The documents produced prima facie supported the existence of the agreement; the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents and had undertaken to cooperate.

In those circumstances, the Court concluded that anticipatory bail was warranted, while preserving the Investigation Officer’s ability to interrogate him and imposing conditions to ensure his cooperation and attendance.

The respondent police, or any other police in Karnataka, were directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 181/2026, subject to conditions.

The petitioner was required to appear before the Investigation Officer on 15 October 2026 at 10:30 a.m.; the officer could take him into custody for interrogation that day, but he was to be released by 6:00 p.m. upon executing a ₹2,00,000 personal bond with one surety for the like sum.

He was also required to attend the Trial Court unless exempted, cooperate with the investigation, avoid tampering with prosecution witnesses, and refrain from similar offences.