Karnataka HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Six Accused In Alleged ₹10.69-Crore App Investment Scam, Citing Failure To Join Probe

01Facts

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1–6, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 91/2023 of Golgumbaz Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.

¶ 3, 5

The prosecution alleged that they induced the complainant and approximately 135 others to invest through the “CAPPMOREFX” app, initially displayed investment returns, and ultimately prevented withdrawals; the alleged loss was approximately Rs. 10,69,79,958, with the possibility of further victims being identified.

¶ 5–6

The investigation was ongoing.

¶ 5–6

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged scale of the fraud and the petitioners’ failure to comply with an investigation notice or assist the police.

¶ 4, 7–11

The petitioners relied on decisions concerning anticipatory bail, which the Court found distinguishable.

¶ 14

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners established grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in the circumstances of the case.

¶ 3, 7, 10–13

ii.Whether the ongoing investigation, the petitioners’ alleged non-compliance with the police notice, and their residence outside Karnataka weighed against granting anticipatory bail.

¶ 8–13

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, identified in the petition as the provision for anticipatory bail; the Court also referred to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶ 3, 8

The alleged offences were punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.

¶ 3, 10

The Court assessed the request by reference to the case-specific circumstances, including the status and needs of the investigation, the petitioners’ response to the investigating officer’s notice, and the risk that they might not appear or assist investigators.

¶ 9–13

It noted that the cited authorities were distinguishable on their facts.

¶ 14

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438 Section 41

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 417

04Reasoning

The Court considered the alleged large-scale financial loss and the possibility that further victims could emerge while the investigation remained incomplete.

¶ 5, 7

It noted that a notice had been issued directing the petitioners to comply with conditions, but found no material showing that they had complied or explained their failure to appear and assist the investigating officer.

¶ 8–11

The Court also considered that the petitioners lived in Rajasthan and Punjab and concluded that granting bail could impede the investigation if they failed to appear.

¶ 13

It found the authorities relied upon by the petitioners inapplicable to the facts before it.

¶ 14