- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15781 CRL.P No. 2900 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2900 OF 2026 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI CHARANPREET SINGH S/O GURINDER SINGH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT B-136, 3RD FLOOR, DAYANAND COLONY, NEAR LAXMI NARAYAN MANDIR, LAJPAT NAGAR-IV, AMAR COLONY, NEW DELHI – 110 024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABDUL SALAM NK.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NORTH CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001, Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15781 CRL.P No. 2900 of 2026 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., LEARNED ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND GRANT AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.601/2025 REGISTERED BY NORTH CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 66(C) AND 66(D) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 READ WITH SECTION 318(4) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15781 CRL.P No. 2900 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking for the grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.601/2025 of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of The Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 318(4) Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Brief facts of the case: The case of the prosecution is that D.N. Dilip Kumar lodged a complaint stating that he got the details through Instagram and also WhatsApp, and that he may get good returns if he opens a Demat account with them. Then he opened a Demat account with them. First, he invested Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner had given good profits. Slowly, they asked him to invest more. Then, he invested Rs.45,000/-. His returns were very good. Suddenly, he was asked to apply for an IPO, which got allotted to him, and returns were very good, which tempted him to invest a huge amount. As per the allegations made in the said complaint, in all, he had invested an amount of Rs.12,19,223/-. After paying the tax amount, he was asked to pay a service fee of Rs.9,14,416/-, which was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15781 CRL.P No. 2900 of 2026 their margin. He had no choice, but he had to pay since his huge amount was struck in the account. After paying that service fee, he was demanded to pay an additional Rs.25,00,000/- as a bank fee. Then he denied. Hence, they blocked his account. It is further stated that he had sent a message to Karan Bhagat, who was the Managing Director of the Company, saying that the bank is charging Rs.25,00,000/- to him. He has replied that a handling fee is imposed by the bank, and he has to pay the same. Hence, he lodged a complaint against the Company/unknown person. 3. Heard Sri. Abdul Salam N.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Pushpalatha B, learned Addl. SPP for respondent - State. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR or in the complaint. The petitioner is a businessman by profession. So there is no piece of evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in the said scam or incident. The petitioner will co-operate with the investigation and will abide - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15781 CRL.P No. 2900 of 2026 by the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP for respondent - State and Special Counsel for Cyber Crime vehemently submitted that several cases are pending against the present petitioner. His modus operandi is to cheat the public by offering them a good amount. Once they invest the huge amount, they will switch off their mobile phones and they will not be reachable to them. So many investors have lost their hard- earned money. If the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, there may be chances of not only hampering the Court proceedings, but also tampering with the evidence. Moreover, he is a resident of Delhi. He will not be available for investigation if he is released on bail. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears that initially, the complaint came to be registered against unknown persons. Thereafter, during the investigation, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15781 CRL.P No. 2900 of 2026 the overt act of the present petitioner has been identified, and he has been arraigned as one of the accused in the said case. 7. Learned Addl. SPP made available the case diary relating to the present case, which would indicate that the amount deposited by the complainant has been transferred to the direct account of the present petitioner. It is further stated that 12 cases are pending against the present petitioner in and around India, and he is required for custodial interrogation to unearth the scam. Considering the said submission and also on perusal of the documents available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Hence, the petition stands rejected, ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38