Facts
The Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 36/2026 involving alleged cheating of ₹1,04,49,999/- through a "digital arrest" modus operandi.
Source reference: p. 1-2The complainant was coerced by individuals posing as police officers via WhatsApp video calls into transferring funds to four bank accounts.
Source reference: p. 3-4A sum of ₹50,00,000/- was transferred into the ICICI bank account of "Smartplan Media Pvt. Ltd.," an entity with which the Petitioner is connected.
Source reference: p. 2-3The Petitioner contended he was a victim of fraud whose SIM card was misused, citing a police complaint dated 26.04.2026.
Source reference: p. 2The State opposed bail, noting that on the day of the fraud, an additional ₹2,34,00,000/- was credited to the same account, which is linked to six other cyber fraud complaints.
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail despite the allegations of involvement in a large-scale organized cyber fraud.
Source reference: p. 4-52. Whether custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the expanse of the offence and the legal relationship between the Petitioner and the beneficiary entity.
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The Court considered the provisions of Sections 308, 318(4), 319, and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Source reference: p. 1It applied the settled legal principle that in cases involving large-scale cyber frauds and economic offences, the grant of anticipatory bail is generally inappropriate as it may thwart or derail the investigation.
Source reference: p. 4-5The court also prioritized the necessity of custodial interrogation for uncovering complex financial "modus operandi" and unearthing the depth of alleged criminal conspiracies.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court rejected the Petitioner's defense that he was a victim of SIM card misuse, noting that his police report (Annexure P-3) was lodged only after he received an investigation notice, making it an "afterthought".
Source reference: p. 4Regarding the Petitioner’s claim of being a "proprietor" of a Private Limited Company, the Court found this statement incoherent, necessitating further probe into the legal character of his relationship with the entity.
Source reference: p. 4The Court emphasized the "digital arrest" tactics used to pressure the complainant and noted the significant influx of suspicious funds (over ₹2.8 crores in total) into the Petitioner's account on a single day.
Source reference: p. 3-4Consequently, the Court found the investigating agency’s request for custodial interrogation justified to uncover the full extent of the cyber fraud network.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that this was not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail due to the seriousness of the offence and the requirement for deep-rooted investigation.
The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application and all accompanying applications.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
Kommineni Ajay BabuvsState Of Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in