$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 5073/2025 MANISH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M. Naushad, Adv. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. SI Sanjeev Lehri, PS: Cyber SED and SI Parveen Kumar, Spl. Staff SED. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 29.07.2026 1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.100/2025, dated 09/12/2025, for the offences under Sections 317(2)/112(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [BNS] registered at Cyber Police Station South East, New Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, there is no participation or active role is assigned to the applicant so as to establish his guilt. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate. 3. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the application and she extensively explains the facts and circumstances from the status report. She also submits that during investigation a visit was conducted to the residential 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:36 address of the applicant for the purpose of serving notice under Section 35(3) BNSS but the premises was found locked and consequently the said notice was affixed on a conspicuous part of the premise and despite service of notice through affixation the applicant has failed to joined the investigation According to her, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The prosecution story would indicate that on receipt of the intimation regarding the cyber-crime under the National Initiative launched by MHA titled SAMANVAYA-Joint Cyber Crime Investigation Facilitation Platform, the matter was scrutinized. During scrutiny under Operation CyHawk, it was found that various mule accounts are linked to those complaints. One of such mule account belonged to co-accused Shubham, who was also found involved in receiving cheated amount in seven different cyber fraud complaints across five different states. In each of those seven complaints, the account in question appeared in the money trail and at multiple transactions in a short period of time, indicating its repeated use in organised siphoning of fraudulent proceeds. Thereupon, FIR for the offence under Sections 317(2)/112(2)/3(5) of BNS was registered. 6. The co-accused Shubham Kumar was arrested on 09.12.2025, and during the investigation he disclosed that due to financial problems, he was introduced by his friend Ankit Tiwari to the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly connected him with Mohd. Ali and Farhan of Batla House. On the instructions of Farhan and Mohd. Ali, Shubham opened 4-5 bank accounts and handed them over in return for Rs.2,800/- per account. It was disclosed 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:36 by him, he withdrew money through cheque from multiple bank accounts and gave cash to the petitioner, Mohd. Ali and Farhan. 7. During investigation, it was further revealed that the applicant had also opened a bank account in his name, which was also given on rent to other persons, namely, Shubham and Ankit Tiwari, who were arrested and granted regular bail. The other accused persons are yet to join. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in order to unearth the complete modus operandi, the applicant needs to be arrested and in the absence of the applicant’s arrest, the investigation may not be taken to its logical conclusion. 9. Supreme Court in SFIO v. Aditya Sarda1, has reiterated that economic offences constitute a class apart and are required to be viewed with greater seriousness. It has been held that the power to grant anticipatory bail in such matters has to be exercised sparingly, particularly where the conduct of the accused reflects an attempt to evade the process of law or where the investigation is likely to be impeded. The Court further observed that offences involving organised financial frauds and deep-rooted conspiracies not only result in substantial wrongful gains to the perpetrators but also adversely affect the financial system and public interest. 10. In the present case, despite service of notice under Section 35(3) BNSS through affixation, the applicant has failed to join the investigation, thereby exhibiting a conduct which does not inspire confidence and disentitles him to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 11. In Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K.2, the Supreme Court has 1 SLP (Crl.) No. 13958/2023; Dated 09.04.2025 2 (2022) 17 SCC 391 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:36 clarified that the mere absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that while the necessity of custodial interrogation is a relevant consideration, the primary factors are the existence of a prima facie case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, even where custodial interrogation is not the sole determining factor, anticipatory bail may be declined if the material collected during investigation discloses the involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged offence. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the investigation has revealed the applicant's prima facie involvement in facilitating the operation of mule bank accounts used for routing the proceeds of cyber fraud. The money trail is yet to be traced in its entirety, the role of other co-accused persons is still under investigation, and the recovery of the proceeds of crime has not been fully effected. The allegations disclose an organised financial fraud requiring a thorough investigation to unearth the complete modus operandi and identify all persons involved. 13. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for unearthing the complete conspiracy and carrying the investigation to its logical conclusion 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are for the limited purpose of the adjudication of the present application. In case the applicant 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:36 surrenders or is arrested and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order. 15. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 29, 2026/p/sa 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:36