BAIL APPLN. 3251/2026 $~96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010367852026 + BAIL APPLN. 3251/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24364/2026 DUDHAGARA RIMPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. K.K. Tiwari, Mr. Ashutosh Rai & Ms. Pooja Singh, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State. SI Jagseer Singh, Cyber Cell, Crime Branch. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 32/2025 (60000299/2025), dated 05.09.2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station, District South, Delhi, under Sections 308/318(4)/319/340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”]. 2. I have heard Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. The petitioner had earlier applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed by an order dated 25.02.2026. The reply filed by the Investigating Officer before the Sessions Court is also 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:31 BAIL APPLN. 3251/2026 part of the record. 4. From the material on record, the prosecution case may be summarised as follows: a. The subject FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one Ms. Jana Rao, a senior citizen, on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. b. The complainant reported that she had received WhatsApp calls from unknown persons who identified themselves as officials of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [“TRAI”] and Mumbai Crime Branch. She was informed that her Aadhaar Card number had been misused in a money laundering case, and was shown purported arrest orders. c. On the directions of the callers, she transferred a sum of Rs. 26,80,000/- into various bank accounts, between 25.08.2025 and 03.09.2025. d. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 26,80,000/-, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- was transferred into the bank account of co-accused, Anil [A/c No. 50100815728528, HDFC Bank, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar] on 30.08.2025. Out of the said amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 5,90,000/- was withdrawn on the same day through a self-cheque, and Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn through ATM on the next day. e. CCTV footage of the concerned bank branch showed that Anil entered the bank branch alongwith another person, waited for the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to be credited, and then withdrew the amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- in cash. 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:31 BAIL APPLN. 3251/2026 f. Anil was arrested on 01.10.2025, and during interrogation, he disclosed the involvement of another co-accused, i.e. Varun @ Lucky, who accompanied him to the bank branch. He stated that he handed over the withdrawn cash to Varun @ Lucky. g. Varun @ Lucky was arrested on 31.10.2025, and during interrogation, he disclosed that he was working at the instance of the present petitioner. Varun @ Lucky also stated that the cash amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- was handed over to the petitioner, after deduction of the commission payable to Anil and him. h. The petitioner and Varun @ Lucky are involved in two prior criminal cases involving cyber frauds, being FIR No. 58/2025 dated 11.04.2025, under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of BNS and Sections 66(B)/66(D)/67(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [“IT Act”], registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar, Punjab; and FIR No. 261/2024, dated 14.12.2024, under Sections 318(4)/319/61 of BNS and Section 66(D) of IT Act, registered at Police Station Bilaspur, Gurugram, Haryana. I am informed that Anil is also an accused in the latter case. 5. Mr. Tiwari submits that the only material available against the petitioner in the present case is the disclosure statement of the co-accused Varun @ Lucky, which is insufficient to link him to the offences and deprive him of his liberty at this stage. Mr. Tiwari further submits that even the disclosure statement was recorded on 30.10.2025, whereas the petitioner was first issued notice dated 13.01.2026 under Section 35(3) of BNSS, only on 20.01.2026, i.e. after the filing of the chargesheet against co-accused in November, 2025. 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:31 BAIL APPLN. 3251/2026 6. As far as the other criminal involvements are concerned, Mr. Tiwari relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.1 [“Prabhakar Tewari”], to contend that prior criminal involvements are not fatal to a bail application. 7. Mr. Srivastava, on the other hand, submits that the prima facie material against the petitioner consists of a disclosure statement of Varun @ Lucky, which is supported by the fact that there are two prior criminal involvements in which the petitioner and Varun @ Lucky are both accused. Those involvements are also of a similar nature as the present case, pertaining to cyber frauds. One of the two other involvements also implicates the other co-accused Anil. Mr. Srivastava submits that the three FIRs of a similar nature, registered over a relevantly short period in different States, shows prima facie that the petitioner is part of a pan- India network involved in cyber fraud. 8. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the interest of the accused in his personal liberty, with the public interest in a free and effective investigation. In Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar2, the Supreme Court has cautioned circumspection, describing anticipatory bail as an extraordinary remedy. The Supreme Court emphasised the considerations which must prevail in adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, in the following terms: “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 1 (2020) 11 SCC 648 2 (2024) 12 SCC 382 [hereinafter, “Srikant Upadhyay”]. 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:31 BAIL APPLN. 3251/2026 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 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.”3 This view has subsequently been followed in Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.4 9. In the present case, the offence involves a cyber fraud against a senior citizen, who had allegedly been shown fake arrest orders by persons impersonating themselves as officials of TRAI and Mumbai Crime Branch. The allegation of coordination between the callers and the accused in the present case is prima facie supported by the fact that the money transferred into the account of co-accused Anil was withdrawn through self cheque and ATM, almost immediately upon the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- being credited into the bank account. The Supreme Court has recently emphasised the particularly grave and serious nature of digital arrest and cyber fraud offences, for which reference may be made to the order dated 01.12.2025 in In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents5. The matter is presently pending consideration before the Court, and the relevant observation is as follows: 3 Emphasis supplied. 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489, paragraph 18. 5 Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3/2025; Order dated 01.12.2025. 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:31 BAIL APPLN. 3251/2026 “These suo-motu proceedings were initiated on receipt of a complaint by this Court from a senior citizen couple who were defrauded of their life savings through a digital arrest scam. No sooner had cognizance been taken, various victims came forward, and some have also filed applications for their impleadment as intervenors. Pursuant to the directions issued through previous orders, it is now evident that multiple FIRs have been registered across different States based on complaints made by the victims. The severity and scale of the crime are highlighted by the fact that several States have unanimously reported that senior citizens are most often targeted by fraudsters employing various deceptive tactics to deceive them.”6 10. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, his involvement in this offence is borne out by the disclosure statement of co-accused Varun @ Lucky, a copy of which has been handed up in the Court and is taken on record. The disclosure statement records that Varun @ Lucky had met the petitioner in October 2024 in Jalandhar. On subsequent visit in November 2024, it is stated that the petitioner informed him that he was involved in illegitimate rotating of funds through bank accounts, and induced Varun @ Lucky to participate in this lucrative activity. It is also contended that at the instance of the petitioner, Varun @ Lucky opened various bank accounts of his own and his family members. He further states that he introduced co-accused Anil to the petitioner to work with them. Varun @ Lucky disclosed that in April 2025, the three of them were arrested by Punjab police during a raid in connection with another FIR, where substantial recovery of electronic devices, ATM cards and cash was made. He stated that after release on bail, they continued to indulge in these activities, and on the promise of higher commission, he and Anil withdrew the cash in the present case, on the instructions of the petitioner. 6 Emphasis supplied. 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:31 BAIL APPLN. 3251/2026 11. When seen in the light of this disclosure statement, the prior involvement of the petitioner in similar offences assumes significance. The two other FIRs in which he is involved also concern cyber fraud and one of them involves both co-accused Anil and Varun @ Lucky, whereas the other also involves Varun @ Lucky. While the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhar Tiwari holds that involvement in prior offences need not always lead to deprivation of bail, in the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, I am not inclined to ignore the petitioner’s previous involvements altogether. 12. In cases of this nature, the investigation requires tracing of the entire network involved, which in the present case may include the identification of the callers who called the complainant, and also tracing of the funds. In such a situation, the requirement of custodial interrogation also cannot be ruled out. The Supreme Court judgments in State v. Anil Sharma7 and P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh8, clearly indicate that custodial interrogation is more effective in eliciting the truth than investigation, while the accused is protected by Courts orders. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid factors, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 14. The petition, alongwith pending application, is therefore dismissed. 15. 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 7 (1997) 7 SCC 187. 8 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:31 BAIL APPLN. 3251/2026 they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 11, 2026 “pv”/MK/ 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 14/08/2026 at 11:25:31