Cyber Fraud Investigation Requires Tracing Entire Conspiracy, Holds Delhi High Court While Denying Pre-Arrest Bail
Facts
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1/2026 registered by the Cyber Crime Branch, Delhi, for offences under Sections 318(4), 319 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the prosecution, the complainant and her husband were induced through Facebook to invest money in a fake investment platform known as the UHNWI application after fraudsters promised substantial returns. They invested ₹29.17 lakh, and when the application displayed profits of nearly ₹3 crore, the fraudsters demanded an additional ₹49.77 lakh before permitting withdrawal.
Investigation revealed that ₹5 lakh out of the cheated amount had been credited to a bank account standing in the name of the applicant’s wife, which was allegedly operated by the applicant through his mobile phone. The investigating agency further found that the same account had been used in approximately 16 NCRP complaints, involving alleged cyber fraud proceeds of nearly ₹76.26 lakh.
Issues
- Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a large-scale cyber fraud investigation.
- Whether custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the extent of the alleged cyber fraud.
- Whether the applicant’s plea that he himself had been deceived by the principal fraudsters justified grant of anticipatory bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicant contended that:
- He himself had become a victim of a larger fraud after being lured into what he believed was a legitimate loan transaction.
- The principal fraudsters persuaded him to open a bank account and share its details in return for promised profits.
- A formal agreement had allegedly been executed between him and the principal accused.
- He had already initiated proceedings under Section 173(4) BNSS before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, seeking registration of an FIR against the principal fraudsters.
- His wife, in whose name the bank account stood, had already been granted anticipatory bail.
- He was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the application, submitting that:
- The investigation was at a crucial stage.
- The applicant had failed to join the investigation despite four notices, resulting in issuance of non-bailable warrants.
- The complaint filed under Section 173(4) BNSS was merely a defensive measure after freezing of the bank account.
- The alleged loan transaction was unsupported by the email correspondence relied upon by the applicant.
- Custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the complete vertical and horizontal spread of the cyber fraud involving multiple victims and international links.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the principles governing anticipatory bail.
It emphasized the distinction between anticipatory bail and regular bail, observing that pre-arrest protection must be granted cautiously, particularly in serious economic offences involving organised cyber fraud.
The Court noted that modern cyber investment scams, which exploit social media platforms and false promises of extraordinary returns, inflict serious financial loss not only upon individual victims but also upon the country’s economy. Such offences require extensive investigation to identify the complete network of participants and trace the movement of proceeds of crime.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not rely upon any judicial precedent.
Instead, the Court decided the application on the basis of settled principles governing anticipatory bail, the seriousness of organised cyber fraud, the ongoing investigation, and the necessity for custodial interrogation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found the applicant’s explanation unconvincing.
It observed that merely claiming to have acted out of greed or to have been deceived by others did not explain why he permitted third parties to operate bank account credentials or why his own mobile number was linked to the operation of a bank account standing in his wife’s name.
The Court also considered it significant that the bank account had allegedly received proceeds from numerous cyber fraud complaints and that investigation into both domestic and overseas aspects of the fraud was continuing.
Given the magnitude of the alleged fraud and the need to identify the complete network of offenders, the Investigating Officer’s request for custodial interrogation was held to be justified.
The Court further observed that granting anticipatory bail in such cases could send an inappropriate message regarding the seriousness of organised cyber frauds affecting the economy.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the applicant had failed to establish a case for anticipatory bail.
Considering the gravity of the alleged cyber fraud, the operation of the bank account linked to multiple complaints, the applicant’s failure to satisfactorily explain his conduct, and the necessity for custodial interrogation to uncover the wider conspiracy, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Case Details
Case: Sudhakar Dwivedi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: Bail Application No. 3039/2026
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 03 August 2026
Result: Anticipatory bail application dismissed; Court held custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation into the alleged multi-victim cyber fraud.
