Anticipatory bail was denied where serious UPI fraud allegations remained under investigation.

The applicant filed his second application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 50/2026 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, for an alleged offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

His earlier anticipatory bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn on 4 August 2026.

The complainant alleged that approximately ₹5,31,208 lying in her Punjab National Bank account was fraudulently transferred through UPI transactions to various accounts after the applicant allegedly accessed her mobile phone, activated the UPI facility, and transferred and spent the money.

The applicant denied the allegations, asserted false implication, relied on the absence of criminal antecedents, and submitted that he was about 18 years old and studying at an Atmanand School.

The State opposed the application on the ground that a substantial amount had been fraudulently transferred and that the allegations were serious.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the alleged fraudulent UPI transfers under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the seriousness of the alleged financial fraud and the fact that the investigation was continuing justified refusal of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest, subject to judicial assessment of the allegations and investigation requirements.

The alleged substantive offence was Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In exercising its discretion, the Court considered the nature and seriousness of the accusation, the alleged amount involved, the material in the case diary, and the stage of investigation.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the allegations concerned the fraudulent transfer of approximately ₹5,31,000 from the complainant’s bank account through UPI transactions, constituting a serious accusation requiring investigation.

Although the applicant claimed innocence, absence of criminal antecedents, and uncertainty regarding his ability to access and operate the complainant’s mobile phone, the Court declined to assess these factual defences conclusively at the anticipatory-bail stage.

Considering the material available in the case diary, the nature of the allegations, the substantial amount involved, and the fact that the investigation was still in progress, the Court held that the applicant did not merit protection from arrest.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.

The Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial Court for necessary information.