Custodial interrogation is justified to trace cyberfraud proceeds and uncover the broader extent of fraudulent activity.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 23/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber, Shahdara, for offences under Sections 318(4), 319 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, through a Telegram link, the petitioner induced the complainant to like products for commission, subsequently persuaded her to invest increasing amounts on the promise of higher returns, and then blocked her account, preventing withdrawal.

Approximately ₹3,62,000 was transferred to the petitioner’s bank account in two tranches and withdrawn on the same day.

Despite repeated notices, the petitioner did not join the investigation.

He claimed that although the bank account belonged to him, he had innocently permitted an unidentified cousin to use it and that the evidence was entirely documentary and digital.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, informing the Court that another complaint concerning the same bank account had been received in Bharuch, Gujarat, and that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the cheated funds and uncover the extent of the alleged fraud.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations that the cheated amount was credited to and withdrawn from his bank account.

2. Whether custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the money trail, determine the extent of the alleged cyberfraud, and examine the petitioner’s role.

3. Whether the petitioner’s explanation that his unidentified cousin had used his bank account sufficiently displaced the prosecution’s prima facie case against him.

The Court applied the provisions of Sections 318(4), 319 and 340 of the BNS, under which the alleged conduct was being investigated.

It applied the settled principle that anticipatory bail is a discretionary and exceptional relief, particularly where the allegations disclose a prima facie role of the applicant and custodial interrogation is reasonably required for an effective investigation.

The Court also treated the gravity and societal impact of organised or technology-enabled financial fraud as relevant considerations in determining whether pre-arrest protection should be granted.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s explanation that his unidentified cousin had innocently operated the account.

The petitioner did not disclose the cousin’s name, had lodged no complaint despite allegedly discovering misuse of his account, and offered no explanation why the cousin could not have opened an independent account; consequently, the alleged cousin appeared prima facie fictitious and the petitioner appeared to be a beneficiary of the cheated funds.

The Court further held that the documentary or digital nature of the evidence did not eliminate the need for custodial interrogation, particularly because another complaint involved the same account and the defrauded amount in that case had also allegedly been withdrawn on the day of credit.

Custodial investigation was therefore considered necessary to determine the quantum and trail of the cheated money and the wider extent of the cyberfraud.

The Court also emphasised the growing abuse of technology in financial frauds and the need to avoid orders that could send an inappropriate signal in such cases.

It found a prima facie basis to treat him as a beneficiary of the alleged fraud and accepted the investigating officer’s request for custodial interrogation to uncover the money trail and the broader fraudulent activities.

The anticipatory bail application, along with the pending application, was dismissed.