BAIL APPLN. 2773/2026 $~114 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2773/2026 MANISH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Mr. Jitendar Kumar Sharma and Mr. Ashish Pradhan, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with SI Satish. Mr. Rahul, Advocate for complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 07/2025 [60000032/2025], dated 04.06.2025, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 318(4) and 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”]. 2. I have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant before this Court. His first application for anticipatory bail [BAIL. APPLN. 2068/2026] was dismissed as withdrawn, by order dated 26.05.2026. The applicant thereafter approached the Sessions Court again 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 22/07/2026 at 11:45:20 BAIL APPLN. 2773/2026 seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected by order dated 03.07.2026. 4. The applicant has placed on record the reply filed by the prosecution before the Sessions Court in the latest application. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the said status report, is as follows: a. The subject FIR was filed pursuant to a complaint filed by one Thakur Prasad Mina, who stated that he was a victim of an online financial fraud. b. During the investigation, the complainant stated that he was induced to download an application, namely “ABBOT MANAGE”, and was directed to deposit approximately Rs. 97 lakhs into various bank accounts for the purpose of investment in shares and IPOs of different companies. c. Investigation revealed that the complainant had deposited approximately Rs. 30,00,000/- into a Bandhan Bank account [Account No. 20100048056523], registered in the name of Nirmal Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of co-accused Pranranjan Sinha. d. Pranranjan Sinha was arrested on production from Ranchi Jail, where he was in custody in relation to another case [FIR No. 89/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Ranchi, Jharkhand]. He disclosed that he had opened the said bank account at the instance of the applicant herein, for siphoning and routing funds generated through illegal online gaming activities. He further stated that the applicant had assured him of a 20% commission on the total transaction amount passing through the said account. e. Relying on the aforesaid representations, Pranranjan Sinha opened 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 22/07/2026 at 11:45:20 BAIL APPLN. 2773/2026 the bank account, and shared its details with the applicant, who, in turn, shared it with others for facilitating the criminal activities. He further disclosed that the applicant had taken him to Varanasi where he was introduced to other co-accused persons, including Aman and Om Chaurasia. f. A notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was served upon the applicant, however, he did not join the investigation. g. During the course of investigation, several other accused persons were arrested, and a chargesheet has been filed against them. However, the applicant has evaded arrest, and Non-Bailable Warrants have been issued against him. 5. It is contended by Mr. Panigrahi that there is no material whatsoever to link the applicant to the transaction in the account of co- accused Pranranjan Sinha. He states that the applicant was merely performing services as a taxi driver, whose car was hired by Pranranjan Sinha for travel from Ranchi to Varanasi. Mr. Panigrahi also seeks to draw parity with co-accused Vikas Kumar Sinha, who has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court vide order dated 01.06.2026. 6. Mr. Srivastava, on the other hand, submits that there is no change of circumstances, which requires reconsideration of the applicant’s request for anticipatory bail, which was withdrawn before this Court on 26.05.2026. He submits that the complainant was defrauded of a large sum of Rs.97,00,000/-, on the pretext of investment in shares and IPOs of various companies. A sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, out of the aforesaid amount, was deposited to the account of co-accused Pranranjan Sinha, who has disclosed the name of the applicant, as the person who persuaded him to 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 22/07/2026 at 11:45:20 BAIL APPLN. 2773/2026 provide an account for this purpose. Mr. Srivastava points out that four other cyber crime complaints are registered against the same account, in the name of the proprietorship concern of Pranranjan Sinha. According to Mr. Srivastava, the entire financial network of accounts and persons involved is yet to be traced, and the investigation remains ongoing. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Commission of offences involving online fraud are serious in nature. Innocent victims, often senior citizens or gullible job seekers, are induced to part with their hard earned money, on the promise of jobs or high returns on investment, etc. The grant of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised with due circumspection. The Supreme Court has held, inter alia in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar1, that such an exercise requires balancing the public interest in a fair and effective investigation, with the potential deprivation of the liberty of the accused. The relevant observations of the Court are as follows: “30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the 1 (2024) 12 SCC 382. 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 22/07/2026 at 11:45:20 BAIL APPLN. 2773/2026 section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is not entitled to such grant.”2 8. The investigation is still ongoing, and the money trail is yet to be fully uncovered. Having regard to the nature of the offence in the present case, and particularly to the fact that the applicant’s name has been disclosed by the co-accused as the organiser of the account into which the proceeds of the offence were deposited, I am of the view that the requirement of custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out at this stage. It may also be borne in mind that the Supreme Court, in State v. Anil Sharma3 and P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh4, has emphasised that custodial interrogation is far more effective in eliciting the truth than interrogation while the accused is clothed with the protection of the Court. 9. Mr. Panigrahi seeks to explain the applicant’s presence in Varanasi, alongwith Pranranjan Sinha, at the time of commission of the offence, and Call Detail Records connectivity, on the ground that he was driving the taxi hired by the said co-accused. While this may be a plausible explanation which remains to be investigated, Mr. Srivastava submits, upon instructions, that the investigation with the hotel, in fact, shows that the applicant and co-accused Pranranjan Sinha were checked 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 (1997) 7 SCC 187. 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157. 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 22/07/2026 at 11:45:20 BAIL APPLN. 2773/2026 into the hotel in Varanasi at the same time and were sharing a room. This prima facie reveals a deeper association than that of a taxi driver and passenger. 10. As far as the ground of parity with co-accused Vikas Kumar Sinha is concerned, the order granting anticipatory bail to him records that the role attributed to him was only that he introduced the present applicant to Pranranjan Sinha. The Sessions Court found that the applicant therein had joined investigation, and that the evidence sought to be collected from him was primarily documentary and digital in nature. In the case of the present applicant, however, the role attributed to him is different, inasmuch as he is the person who is alleged to have induced Pranranjan Sinha to open the account for the purpose of committing the alleged offence. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid factors, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 12. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed. 13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 20, 2026/SS/AN/KA/ 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 22/07/2026 at 11:45:20