- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7781 OF 2025 BETWEEN: FAISAL AHMED S/O DADDAPEER KAMPLI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT: BEHIND RANGINA KATTI COURT, KAMARI COTTAGE, BHATKAL TOWN, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT-581 320. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY C.E.N CRIME POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THEM ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.101/2024 OF CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419, 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 66(C), 66(D) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT DAVANAGERE. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CAV ORDER This petition is preferred, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.101/2024 of CEN Crime Police Station, Davanagere, registered for the offence punishable under Section 419 and 420 of IPC and 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. (for short ‘IT Act’). 2. The aforementioned case is registered on the first information lodged by one Smt.Shashikala D.G., wife of Gangadharappa, against an unknown person, referring to Mobile No.8768645483. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional SPP for the State and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 4. Brief facts of the case:- The first informant is a resident of Davangere. She holds an SBI Account No.64108482486, IFSC SBIN0040792, linked to her mobile No.8971956067 and connected to Phonepe and Google Pay. Her sister, father and aunt also have accounts in SBI, HDFC and Canara Bank with linked mobile numbers and UPI apps. On 31.05.2024, at about 4.00 p.m., she received a message from mobile No.8768645483 through Telegram application, inducing her to believe that by performing online “rating Tasks” through a website and Telegram group titled “Rank My APP 5091”, she would earn daily commission. She was initially credited with small bonus amounts to gain her confidence, and thereafter she was persuaded to transfer large sums of money on the pretext of commission earnings. Believing such representations, she transferred a total sum of Rs.37,45,000/- in different tranches between 03.06.2024 and 29.06.2024, out of which only Rs.16,538/- was credited back to her account, and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 remaining Rs.37,28,946/- was misappropriated. It is alleged that the accused persons including the present petitioner arraigned as accused No.1, operated multiple bank accounts in their own names and in the names of their relatives for the purpose of such fraudulent transactions. 5. On the basis of the complaints lodged with the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP), FIR came to be registered. 6. In the chargesheet filed against three accused, petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. Split-up chargesheet is filed against accused Nos.2 and 3 as they are absconding. Petitioner who was arrested on 07.03.2025, preferred a bail petition before the Sessions Court in Crl. Misc No.358/2025. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the said petition vide order dated 02.05.2025. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the present case. He contended that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and his implication as accused No.1 is at the behest of personal motive. Further, entire case of the prosecution rests upon the alleged online investments made by the informant and her family members through Telegram application and website links, on the assurance of earning commission. They have made online transfers from their respective bank accounts, out of which a sum of Rs.16,538/- was admittedly returned as commission. Thus, the dispute essentially arises out of a failed investment scheme. Hence, merely because such investments did not yield the anticipated profit, the same cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution. 8. The learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the material in the chargesheet does not specifically attribute the acts of inducement or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 misrepresentation. The bank statements of the petitioner do not disclose that any substantial amount was credited to his accounts and no material has been produced to demonstrate that the petitioner had direct communication with the complainant. 9. The learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the entire investigation is completed and chargesheet has been filed. The trial is likely to take considerable time and the continued detention of the petitioner would serve no fruitful purpose, except punitive incarceration prior to trial. 10. The learned Additional SPP has filed statement of objections. Prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed, contending that the allegations are serious in nature involving large-scale cyber fraud. During investigation, a sum of Rs.19,66,081/- was found in the petitioner’s account and Rs.3,98,208/- was seized form the account of CW.7. The material witnesses CW.7 to CW.11 have specifically stated that the petitioner used their - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 accounts for facilitating the alleged fraudulent transactions. 11. The learned Additional SPP has further contended that petitioner is found to be operating multiple accounts in different Banks. During the period 01.01.2024 to 31.01.2025, on the whole, transactions to the tune of Rs.1,69,17,193/- were recorded in these accounts, suspected to be linked to the fraudulent activities. Nine cases are registered against the petitioner in NCRP portal in different States. She contended that, petitioner has failed to disclose the source of funds and not responded to the notice issued by the Police. His accomplices are absconding and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood that he will abscond, tamper with prosecution witnesses, and repeat similar offences. Hence, prayed to reject the petition. 12. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.05.2024, the complainant received a message from an unknown mobile number through Telegram, informing that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 by performing “rating task reviews” on an online application, he could earn a daily commission ranging from Rs.900/- to Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, the complainant was added to a Telegram group named “Rank My App 5091”, which was administered by one Hithesh Rai @ HR9148. Believing the representations, the complainant initially invested certain amounts as instructed, and upon receiving small sums credited to his bank account, was induced to make further deposits. Between 03.06.2024 and 29.06.2024, the complainant and his family members are alleged to have transferred, in different tranches, a total of Rs.37,45,000/- into various bank accounts, while receiving only Rs.16,538/- as commission. When neither the principal investment nor the promised commission was returned, the complainant realized he had been defrauded and lodged a complaint with the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. 13. Pursuant to investigation, it is further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 had induced CW.1 in the aforesaid - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 manner and collected funds through multiple bank accounts. Specifically, on 10.06.2024, an amount of Rs.5,44,339/- was transferred into the account of CW.7, and accused No.1, in connivance with accused Nos.2 and 3, induced CW.7 to withdraw Rs.5,44,000/- in cash under the pretext that one of his friends had invested money for business purposes, and thereafter misappropriated the same. The investigation has revealed that a total of Rs.37,45,000/- was transferred by CW.1 and other witnesses into as many as 14 different bank accounts, and only a meagre sum of Rs.16,538/- was returned as commission. Investigation has revealed that accused No.1 was operating several bank accounts, against which multiple cyber fraud cases are registered on the NCRP Portal across different States. It has also come to light that the bank accounts of CWs.7 to 11 were used in the alleged cyber fraud transactions, and several criminal cases are registered against those accounts as well. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 14. The allegations against the petitioner involves large-scale cyber fraud and economic offences. According to prosecution, the fraudulent transactions were carried out in a chain-link manner through as many as 14 different bank accounts. A large part of the fraudulent proceeds is yet to be traced and seized. The material on record disclosed that the petitioner along with other accused, orchestrated a well-planned scheme to defraud the complainant and others by inducing them to transfer substantial amounts of money under the guise of online “Rating Tasks” and commission earnings. The investigation has revealed that the petitioner operated multiple bank accounts, including those in the names of his relatives, and facilitated the movement of fraudulent funds through a complex web of transactions. 15. As per prosecution, petitioner is involved in multiple cyber fraud cases registered across various States, as reflected in the NCRP portal. The modus operandi followed in the present case inducing gullible - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 victims to transfer money under the guise of online commission earnings, using multiple bank accounts, and siphoning off the amounts demonstrates a well-organized fraudulent scheme. The material on record clearly disclose deliberate inducement, false representation and systematic diversion of funds. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that economic offences, particularly those involving cyber fraud and large-scale cheating, constitute a class apart and must be viewed with a different approach in the matter of bail. 17. In Sourish Bose v. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.10546/2024 dd.22.11.2024 the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court highlighted the transformative shift in criminal activity due to the digital age. The Court observed that traditional crimes have been overshadowed by a surge in cybercrimes and online frauds, which have increased in scale and impact. The Court noted that digital crimes, especially cheating and fraud, have exploded in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 numbers and now have consequences that transcend geographical boundaries. ".......On the advent of internet and its tremendous advancement, the world today is unipolar. Crimes and its commission have become ingenious, particularly in the digital age of today. There is huge proliferation in the cyber crimes and online frauds in particular. It is developed to an alarming rate, leaving the victims in their wake. The modus operandi, in these new age crimes, have completely changed the conventional acts of robbery and dacoity. Though they still exist, but the digital crimes have overshadowed the conventional crimes. The consequences of such crimes are beyond boundaries. It is, therefore, they are modern age crimes." 18. The contention of the petitioner that the entire investigation is completed and chargesheet has been filed does not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to bail, particularly when the investigation is still ongoing with respect to the tracing of the proceeds of crime and apprehension of absconding co-accused. The possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence, influencing - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38678 CRL.P No. 7781 of 2025 witnesses, or absconding cannot be ruled out, especially in view of the petitioner’s involvement in multiple cases across different States. The apprehension of the prosecution that if released, the petitioner may tamper with witnesses, abscond, or indulge in similar cyber frauds, therefore, cannot be lightly brushed aside. The manner in which the offence has been committed, the involvement of multiple bank accounts, and petitioner’s role in facilitating the transactions, all point towards a well-organized and premeditated economic offence, which also demonstrates petitioner’s propensity to commit similar offences. 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1