BAIL APPLN. 4847/2025 $~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4847/2025 & CRL.M.As. 37309-37311/2025 MR. VIVEK KUMAR ASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Babul Kumar, Advocate. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. SI Anuplata, PS-Cyber NED. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 20.03.2026 1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 30/2024, dated 17.05.2024, registered at P.S. Cyber Police Station (North-East), under Sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. 2. The FIR pertains to a complaint with regard to a cyber fraud. It is stated that on 13.04.2024, the complainant received a call from a mobile number [8180384026], by which the caller introduced himself as an employee of FedEx Courier Company, and told him that there were some passports, drugs, and illegal items found in a parcel sent by him to Taiwan. It was further stated that the complaint had been transferred to the Cyber Crime Branch of Mumbai Police. Thereafter, another person introduced himself as a Sub Inspector, and threatened the complainant with allegations of involvement in money laundering, drug trafficking, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:57:16 BAIL APPLN. 4847/2025 and terrorist activities, asking him to join investigation in Mumbai on the threat of arrest. He was thereafter asked to download Skype, and he was directed not to communicate with anyone. The complainant was then induced to transfer amounts to an account designated by the callers. The complainant claims to have transferred a sum of Rs. 30,85,592/- in two tranches. Rs. 20,10,000/- out of the total amount was transferred in account No. 2647005500000023 in Punjab National Bank in the name of co-accused Satish Kumar. 3. Co-accused Satish Kumar was arrested and in the course of interrogation, a mobile phone was recovered from him which inter alia contained WhatsApp conversations with the petitioner herein relating to the said bank account. The aforesaid conversations were with the petitioner’s mobile No. 7004695023. It is further alleged that the co- accused Satish Kumar stated that he had sold his account to the present petitioner and all the credentials, bank details, OTPs, passwords were available with the present petitioner. The bank account in Punjab National Bank is linked to mobile No 8877031015, which has been traced to one Reena Singh alleged to be a relative of the present petitioner. 4. The petitioner has been served with notices under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [“CrPC”], to join the investigation. A copy of a reply to a notice dated 31.05.2025 has been placed on record, in which the petitioner stated that he could not join investigation due to ill- health, but sought a date in July 2025. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, states that in July 2025 also a Section 41A CrPC notice were served upon him, but he again failed to join investigation. A copy of the said notice has been handed up This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:57:16 BAIL APPLN. 4847/2025 in Court, and is taken on record. 5. I have heard Mr. Babul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Chauhan. 6. Mr. Kumar submits that the petitioner is willing to join the investigation. He denies the petitioner’s involvement in the present offence. 7. Mr. Chauhan, however, submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in order to trace the funds which are the subject matter of the offences. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am not persuaded that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy which must be considered with due circumspection, as held by the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., [(2024) 12 SCC 382; paragraph 30]. While the Court must balance public interest in a fair and effective investigation, with the prejudice to the accused by possible deprivation of his/her liberty, in cases of cyber fraud, the electronic evidence and financial details require investigation in some detail, for which requirement of custodial interrogation of the accused cannot be ruled out. The Supreme Court has held in State v. Anil Sharma, [(1997) 7 SCC 187] that custodial interrogation is more effective in eliciting the truth than interrogation while the accused is clothed with protective orders of the Court. The same view has been expressed by Supreme Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157, paragraph 19]. 10. Although it is alleged that the second notice was not received by This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:57:16 BAIL APPLN. 4847/2025 the petitioner, copies of the notices have been handed up in Court, and it is evident that both notices were sent to the same address of the petitioner, and that he had, in fact, replied to the first of those notices. 11. In the present case, the prima facie material includes WhatsApp conversations with the co-accused, which shows that the details of the bank account into which the cheated funds were traced and shared with the present petitioner. While the purpose and effect of such evidence will have to be determined in the course of investigation, the prima facie material also includes linking of a mobile number in the name of the petitioner’s relative to the aforesaid bank account. 12. The petitioner has also failed to join investigation despite his commitment to join in the month of July 2025. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid material, I am of the view that the present case is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 14. The application is therefore dismissed. 15. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall not influence the trial proceedings, nor shall they be construed as an expression on merits of the case. PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 20, 2026 ‘Bhupi’/AD/ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:57:16