Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a young MBA student accused of facilitating a cyber fraud through alleged mule bank accounts, holding that custodial interrogation was not justified once the cheated amount had been fully recovered and similarly placed co-accused had already been granted protection. The Court emphasized that the investigation was largely document- and data-centric, and that continued denial of anticipatory bail would be disproportionate in the absence of direct inducement, receipt of funds, or necessity for custodial questioning .
Facts
The case arose from a cyber fraud complaint involving a work-from-home scam, where the complainant was induced through WhatsApp calls to perform online tasks in return for promised income. After initial small payments to build trust, the complainant was persuaded to deposit increasingly larger sums on the assurance of higher returns. Ultimately, his money was neither returned nor credited, resulting in a loss of ₹3.75 lakhs. The fraud involved layered transfers through multiple bank accounts and alleged use of cryptocurrency-linked transactions .
Issues
The central issue before the Court was whether the applicant, alleged to have supplied mule bank accounts for routing cheated money, should be denied anticipatory bail on the ground of custodial interrogation being necessary for uncovering a larger cyber fraud network, despite full recovery of the cheated amount and grant of bail to co-accused. The Court also examined the relevance of parity, cooperation with investigation, and proportionality in pre-arrest bail decisions in cyber fraud cases.
Petitioner’s arguments
The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, had no direct interaction with the complainant, and did not receive any part of the cheated amount. It was contended that his alleged involvement was based solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and selective WhatsApp chats, without independent corroboration. He emphasized his clean antecedents, young age, and academic status, asserting that custodial interrogation would cause irreparable harm to his education and reputation. Reliance was placed on constitutional principles of personal liberty and parity, particularly since a co-accused with a more proximate role had already been granted anticipatory bail .
Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed the application, asserting that the applicant was a key link in a cyber fraud syndicate facilitating mule accounts for routing funds through peer-to-peer cryptocurrency platforms. The prosecution relied on recovered WhatsApp chats, alleged coordination patterns, and the applicant’s failure to join investigation despite statutory notices. It was argued that custodial interrogation was crucial to trace crypto wallets, private keys, digital devices, and foreign platforms, and that anticipatory bail would enable destruction of perishable electronic evidence. The State also claimed the applicant’s involvement in another similar FIR, portraying him as a habitual offender .
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the scope of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterating that arrest is not to be used as a punitive measure. In cyber fraud cases, while digital evidence may warrant careful handling, the necessity of custodial interrogation must be specifically demonstrated. The Court underscored that mere allegations of larger conspiracy or technological complexity cannot override the fundamental right to personal liberty, especially where investigation substantially rests on documented material already in the possession of authorities.
Precedent analysis
Reliance was placed on established Supreme Court jurisprudence recognizing anticipatory bail as a safeguard against arbitrary arrest. The Court drew strength from the principle laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), which affirms that anticipatory bail can be granted without time limitation and should be guided by facts demonstrating necessity of arrest. The High Court applied this precedent to conclude that when investigation can proceed without custody, denial of bail would be unjustified .
Court’s reasoning
The Court noted that the applicant’s name did not appear in the FIR and that there was no allegation of direct inducement, deception, or receipt of money by him. Importantly, the entire cheated amount had already been recovered and paid back to the complainant, reducing the urgency for custodial interrogation. The alleged role of supplying mule accounts emerged primarily from co-accused disclosures. The Court also emphasized parity, observing that a co-accused with a more immediate role in handling accounts and deposits had already been granted anticipatory bail. Given the applicant’s clean antecedents and academic background, the Court found no material suggesting he was a flight risk or likely to influence witnesses .
Conclusion
Balancing the gravity of cyber fraud allegations with constitutional protections of liberty, the Delhi High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail subject to stringent conditions, including cooperation with investigation, non-tampering of evidence, and non-contact with witnesses. The decision reinforces the principle that arrest must remain a measure of last resort, even in complex cyber crime investigations .
Implications
This ruling carries significant implications for cyber fraud jurisprudence. It clarifies that recovery of cheated money and parity with co-accused can substantially weaken the case for custodial interrogation. The judgment also signals judicial caution against overuse of arrest in technology-driven offences where evidence is largely documentary. For investigators, it underscores the need to justify custody with concrete investigative requirements. For accused individuals, especially young professionals and students, the decision strengthens safeguards against disproportionate pre-trial deprivation of liberty.
Case law references
- Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Held that anticipatory bail is a vital protection of personal liberty and need not be limited in duration. The present Court applied this principle to hold that absence of custodial necessity justified pre-arrest protection.
FAQs
1. Can anticipatory bail be granted in cyber fraud mule account cases?
Yes. Courts may grant anticipatory bail if custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly where evidence is documentary and the cheated amount has been recovered.
2. Does recovery of money affect anticipatory bail decisions?
Recovery of the cheated amount significantly reduces the justification for custodial interrogation and can weigh in favour of granting anticipatory bail.3. What is the role of parity in bail matters?
Parity ensures equal treatment. If a similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail, courts generally extend similar relief unless distinguishing factors exist.
