Individual settlement cannot justify anticipatory bail where multiple cybercrime complaints involve linked bank accounts.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 39/2025, registered under Sections 308, 318(4), 319, and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The complainant alleged he was induced by a fraudulent Instagram profile to participate in online gaming via a website named “Sugo,” resulting in a loss of ₹1,92,600/-.

Investigation revealed that ₹54,000/- of the cheated amount was routed to a bank account belonging to "Manu Dream Hub Private Limited," a company where the applicants are proprietors.

While the applicants claimed the money was received due to a "technical glitch" and that they had settled the matter with the complainant, the State opposed the bail, citing 33 similar complaints registered against the applicants’ linked bank accounts on the Samanvya Portal.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite the discovery of multiple cyber fraud complaints against their company's bank accounts.

2. Whether a settlement with a single complainant and a plea of "technical glitch" are sufficient to warrant discretionary relief in an investigation involving an organized cybercrime racket.

The Court applied the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 318(4) regarding cheating.

It further considered the procedural requirements under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, relating to the duty of the accused to join the investigation.

The Court relied on established principles governing anticipatory bail, which require an assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation and recovery of cheated property.

The Court observed that the money trail directly linked the cheated funds to the applicants' company, Manu Dream Hub Private Limited.

It rejected the applicants' "technical glitch" defense as unsubstantiated and implausible, given that the Samanvya Portal revealed 13, 18, and 2 complaints respectively against three bank accounts linked to the applicants' PAN.

The Court held that a settlement with the present complainant is of no consequence when the investigation suggests an organized cybercrime racket affecting multiple victims.

Furthermore, the Court noted the applicants’ failure to join the investigation despite receiving notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, concluding that custodial interrogation is essential to uncover the full extent of the fraud and effect recovery.

The applications for anticipatory bail were dismissed.

The Court directed that the custodial interrogation of the applicants was necessary for an effective investigation.