$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010160462026 + BAIL APPLN. 1498/2026 SUMIAL ALI ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Junaid Khan, Adv. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ......Respondent Through: Mr. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. SI Sombir, PS: Cyber/SW. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 04.08.2026 1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.120/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 112(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) registered at police station Cyber Cell, South-West, Delhi. 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the FIR No. 120/2025 was registered at PS Cyber Cell, involving cyber fraud syndicate operation whereby, innocent citizens through online means were being cheated. They were induced to transfer the funds on the false pretext of investment, part- time job offers, digital arrest or other such deceptive schemes, and diverting the cheated money into various mule accounts. 3. The Court vide order dated 17.04.2026 directed the applicant to cooperate with the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) and to appear before the IO 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:18 as and when he is called for. The applicant appeared and has also furnished some of the information. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, points out that the cooperation rendered by the applicant as of now, has not taken the investigation to its logical conclusion. According to her, in order to unearth the whole syndicate, the applicant’s custody is necessitated. She also points out that five accused have been granted regular bail and one was bowed down. None of the accused persons has been enlarged on anticipatory bail. Various aspects have been indicated to prima facie establish the applicant’s complicity. 5. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present applicant was part of an organised cyber fraud syndicate, which allegedly cheated unsuspecting persons through various online fraudulent schemes and routed the proceeds of crime through mule bank accounts. It is alleged that the bank accounts of the present applicant were knowingly used for receiving and transferring the cheated amounts in lieu of commission. 7. During the course of investigation, the applicant is stated to have disclosed that he had opened the bank accounts in question at the instance of a co-accused in lieu of commission. The investigation further revealed another bank account in the name of the applicant allegedly linked with additional NCRP complaints. During the investigation, other alleged members of the syndicate were also apprehended and incriminating chats were recovered, which, according to the prosecution, disclose the involvement of the present applicant. Upon completion of the investigation, 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:18 a charge-sheet was filed against the other co-accused persons, while the investigation qua the present applicant continued. 8. The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr.,1 noted that unlike a conventional crime, which may be committed owing to the rise of passions, an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with a complete disregard for the community and the victims. Para. 5 of the said decision of reads as under: “5. … The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest. The High Court was therefore altogether unjustified in rejecting the application made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor invoking the powers of the Court under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are of the opinion that the application should have been granted in the facts and circumstances of the case with the end in view to do full and true justice. The application made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is therefore granted. The High Court will issue appropriate directions for the recording of the evidence to prove the report of the Mint Master under Section 391 CrPC when the matter goes back to the High Court and is listed for directions. The appeal is therefore allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for proceeding further in accordance with law in the light of the above said directions.” 9. In YS Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI,2 the Supreme Court noted that economic offences constitute a separate class and a different approach needs to be adopted while considering the issue of grant of bail. The rationale 1 (1987) 2 SCC 364. 2 (2013) 7 SCC 439. 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:18 being that such offences, inter alia, involve a huge loss of public funds: “34.⁠ ⁠Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35.⁠ ⁠While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” 10. Further, in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi),3 the Supreme Court noted as under: “17.⁠ ⁠While granting bail, the relevant considerations are: (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard-and-fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. In Ram Gopal v. State of NCT of Delhi,4 this Court, importantly, held as under: “14. The offence of “digital arrest” has emerged as a multi-faceted crime. Unlike traditional cyber crimes, these offences do not merely entail economic consequences but are committed with the intent to instil fear, make the victims comply with their commands under the false pretext of authority, and to inflict mental and emotional torture. These offenders take advantage of the naiveté and innocence of the individuals by assuming a fictitious identity of a government official and terrorizing them. Given the alarming and exponential rise in the tendency of such orchestrated 3 (2018) 12 SCC 129. 4 Bail Appl. No. 1481/2026, order dt. 04.08.2026. 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:18 cybercrimes, it is imperative that the judicial system and law enforcement agencies step up to protect vulnerable citizens. Such offenses ought to be dealt with an iron hand, ensuring that no leniency is shown to the perpetrators of this modern-day extortion.” 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar,5 has concisely explained the power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail. The relevant para no. 30 is extracted as under: - “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 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….” (emphasis supplied) 13. The material collected during the course of investigation prima facie indicates that one of the bank accounts was in the name of the present applicant. It also appears that the said account was being operated by the applicant for commission. In the opinion of this Court, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, particularly in view of the stand taken by the IO in paragraph 12 of the Status Report. Paragraph 12 of the Status Report is extracted hereunder: “12.2 Anticipatory Bail Application was also moved by the present applicant and later withdrawn. NBW was got issued against the present applicant Shumail Ali S/o Khalid Ali on 20.02.2026 by the Hon'ble Court 5 (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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:18 of CJM, Saket Court, New Delhi. During the course of investigation, Search of the applicant/accused person Shumail Ali search was made and raid conducted at his address o S-2/3 Jogabai Extn Batla House Jamia Nagar Okhla ND but he is not found at the given address. Hence the NBW couldn't be executed as the applicant/accused is deliberately evading his arrest. PO proceedings against the applicant have been initiated.” 14. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the applicant’s prima facie complicity, and the insistence of his interrogation, the applicant is not found entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 15. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 4, 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:18