Delhi HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail to Woman Whose Account Received ₹90,000 in ₹36.4-Lakh Online Trading Fraud, Citing Untraced Money Trail

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, having regard to the allegations, the banking evidence and the stage of the investigation.

The court held

The Court answered against the petitioner and dismissed the anticipatory-bail application, finding that the facts did not make it a fit case for relief under Section 482 BNSS.

It also directed

It clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial.

01Facts

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 80/2026, registered under Sections 318(4), 319 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

The prosecution alleged that ₹36.4 lakh obtained through an online trading fraud was routed through multiple bank accounts.

pp. 1–5

A co-accused said that ₹7 lakh withdrawn from an account used to receive the funds was delivered to the petitioner through an intermediary.

pp. 1–5

Bank records also showed that ₹90,000 was credited to the petitioner’s account and that she transferred ₹51,000 onward.

pp. 1–5

The petitioner claimed the money was a loan and that she had no knowledge of its alleged source.

pp. 1–5

Her earlier anticipatory-bail application had been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

pp. 1–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, having regard to the allegations, the banking evidence and the stage of the investigation.

pp. 5–6, 11–16

ii.2. Whether the need for custodial interrogation and the unrecovered proceeds justified refusing anticipatory bail.

pp. 11–15

03Law Applied

Section 482 BNSS empowers the court to grant anticipatory bail.

In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court described anticipatory bail as an extraordinary remedy to be exercised cautiously, particularly where protection may hamper investigation or risk interference with evidence.

p. 5

P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh confirms that cooperation with investigators, or the absence of an established need for custodial interrogation, does not by itself require anticipatory bail; the court must assess the case as a whole.

pp. 6–7

P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement recognises the serious investigative concerns that may arise in economic offences involving layered transactions, while requiring the court to consider the circumstances of the case.

pp. 7–9

The application arose from an FIR alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 319 and 340 BNS.

p. 1

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318 Section 319 Section 340

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438

04Reasoning

The Court considered that the petitioner’s alleged connection to the funds was supported not only by the co-accused’s statements but also by banking records showing the receipt of ₹90,000 and the onward transfer of ₹51,000.

pp. 11–15

It noted that the petitioner had not given a consistent explanation for those transactions, that a substantial portion of the cheated amount remained unrecovered, and that the complete financial trail and other participants remained to be identified.

pp. 11–15

In light of these circumstances and the alleged economic offence, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation could assist the investigation and that anticipatory-bail protection was not warranted.

pp. 11–15

05Holding

The Court answered against the petitioner and dismissed the anticipatory-bail application, finding that the facts did not make it a fit case for relief under Section 482 BNSS.

pp. 16–17

It clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial.

p. 18

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF