P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To 50% Shareholder In Firm Receiving ₹80 Lakh In Suspected Cyber-Fraud Proceeds, Citing Delayed Resignation Filing

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging cyber fraud and offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant’s firm was induced to transfer ₹3.16 crore to four accounts; ₹80 lakh was traced to a company in which the petitioner held a 50% shareholding.

The petitioner relied on a claimed resignation as director dated 10 July 2026 and denied involvement.

The State relied, among other things, on records continuing to show him as a director and a resignation filing made in September 2026, related cybercrime complaints, and the need for custodial interrogation.

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

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail; that relief is discretionary and not claimable as of right.

In exercising that discretion, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material gathered during investigation, and the need to secure an effective investigation, balancing personal liberty against the legitimate demands of criminal justice.

The judgment cites no specific judicial precedents.

The Court considered the ₹80 lakh credit to the company’s account, the petitioner’s 50% shareholding and the disputed chronology of his resignation sufficient to warrant further investigation into his role, while recognising that corporate association alone does not establish criminal liability.

The later corporate filing and official record listing him as a director meant that the resignation document did not, at this stage, dispel the concerns about his association with the company and its banking operations.

The alleged scale and routing of funds, complaints concerning the same account, and the stated need to trace the proceeds and identify those controlling the account supported the prosecution’s request for custodial interrogation.

The Court also took the disclosed criminal antecedents into account.

It left disputed factual questions open for determination at trial.

The petition was dismissed; the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the investigation or trial.