Karnataka High Court denies anticipatory bail in alleged digital-arrest scam involving ₹31.83 crore and 75 bank accounts

Facts

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 6, 4 and 5 respectively, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 379/2025, registered for alleged offences under Sections 66, 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 308 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Source reference: p. 4, para. 1

The case arose from a “digital arrest” scheme in which callers posing as officials allegedly threatened the complainant and induced her to transfer a total of Rs. 31.83 crores to 75 bank accounts between 15 September 2024 and 13 November 2025

Source reference: pp. 5–6, para. 4

After the jurisdictional Sessions Court rejected their anticipatory-bail applications, the petitioners approached the High Court

Source reference: p. 6, para. 3

The High Court recorded that statements of arrested accused and the remand application implicated the petitioners; accused No. 5 was described as the alleged mastermind, accused Nos. 4–6 as beneficiaries, and amounts were said to have been transferred directly to their bank accounts

Source reference: p. 6, para. 5

Issues

Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in Crime No. 379/2025, in light of the allegations and material collected during the investigation

Source reference: pp. 4, 6–7, paras. 1, 5–6

Law Applied

The petitions were brought under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail

Source reference: pp. 2–4; p. 4, para. 1

The alleged offences were under Sections 66, 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 308 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Source reference: p. 4, para. 1

The order does not cite any precedent or set out a separate doctrinal test for anticipatory bail; it assesses the request by reference to the allegations, the investigation material and the nature of the alleged cybercrime

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 5–6

Reasoning

The Court considered the complainant’s account of the alleged fraud alongside the statements of arrested accused and the remand application, which, in its view, showed the petitioners’ alleged roles and connected them to the proceeds of crime

Source reference: pp. 5–7, paras. 4–5

It also noted that amounts had allegedly been received directly in the petitioners’ bank accounts

Source reference: p. 7, para. 5

Given the nature of the allegations and the societal harm attributed to cybercrime, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ request for anticipatory bail could not be entertained

Source reference: p. 7, para. 6