01Facts
The applicant, a 24-year-old resident of Saharanpur, was arrested on February 6, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 05/2025 involving a massive cyber fraud totaling ₹2.27 Crores.
¶ 1, 3It is alleged that the applicant participated in transactions amounting to ₹8.50 Lakhs.
¶ 3The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that the police failed to comply with mandatory arrest procedures.
¶ 1, 2The State opposed bail, citing the ongoing investigation and the risk of the applicant absconding as he resides in a different state.
¶ 302Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering his age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the non-compliance of Section 41/41A of the Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Authority.
¶ 2, 6, 9ii.2. Whether the court can impose strict financial and residency conditions to mitigate the risk of the applicant absconding during trial.
¶ 3, 603Law Applied
The Court applied Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 66D of the I.T. Act regarding the substantive offences.
¶ 1Procedurally, it relied on Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for the grant of bail.
¶ 1Crucially, the Court invoked the mandatory guidelines for arrest established in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273* and *Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51*, which necessitate compliance with Section 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C. (now integrated into BNSS) for offences punishable by less than seven years.
¶ 2, 9Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 480
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318Section 3
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 41
04Reasoning
The Court observed that despite the seriousness of the cyber fraud, the mandatory provisions of Section 41/41A of the Cr.P.C. were not followed, as no notice was issued to the applicant prior to arrest.
¶ 3, 9The Court balanced the State's concern regarding the applicant’s out-of-state residence and the complexity of the "huge cyber fraud" against the applicant’s youth (24 years) and clean criminal record.
¶ 3, 6While acknowledging the increasing rate of cybercrimes, the Court reasoned that the interest of justice would be served by releasing the applicant on bail subject to stringent conditions—specifically a heavy cash deposit and local police reporting—to ensure his availability for a trial that is expected to take considerable time.
¶ 2, 605Holding
The Court allowed the bail application.
¶ 6The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one solvent surety, subject to specific conditions: (i) depositing ₹5 Lakh within 48 hours before the trial court; (ii) surrendering his passport; and (iii) marking presence at the police station on the first Saturday of every month.
¶ 7, 6.1, 6.4, 6.6The Court also directed the trial court to take action against the police authorities for the non-compliance of Section 41/41A Cr.P.C. and the *Arnesh Kumar* guidelines.
¶ 9Original Court PDF
Mohmmad Azhar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2026:MPHC-JBP:19566]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Mandatory Compliance with Section 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar Guidelines Essential for Valid Arrest and Bail Consideration.. Mohmmad Azhar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2026:MPHC-JBP:19566]. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/mandatory-compliance-with-section-41a-crpc-and-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-essential-for-valid-cff64142fef040198a807bfdc4fec853.webp)