- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32819 CRL.P No. 6877 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6877 OF 2026 BETWEEN: ATHUL S S/O SANTOSH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT, VYSHAKHAM ULACODU, VAKKANADU, KAREEPRA KUZHIMATHICAUD, KOTTARAKARA KOLLAM KERALA - 691 509. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SIJI MALAYIL, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY SOUTH EAST CEN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2026 IN CRL.MISC.NO.2262/2026, PASSED BY THE LXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY CCH-70 VIDE ANNEUXRE- C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in Crime No.532/2024 registered by South East CEN Crime Police Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32819 CRL.P No. 6877 of 2026 Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 419 & 420 of IPC and Section 66(C) & 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.532/2024 was registered by South East CEN Crime Police Station, Bengaluru City for the aforesaid offences against unknown persons based on the first information dated 10.06.2024 received from Sri Prateek Gupta S/o Naresh Kumar Gupta. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.2262/2026 before the jurisdiction Sessions Court which was rejected on 13.03.2026. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student having no other criminal antecedents. Amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was transferred to the bank account of the petitioner on instruction by his friend. The said amount was withdrawn by his friend to whom the petitioner had given - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32819 CRL.P No. 6877 of 2026 his ATM card. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that, investigation reveals that sum of Rs.6,50,000/- was transferred to the petitioner's bank account on various dates and the said amount has been periodically withdrawn by the petitioner. He submits that considering the nature of offence, the petitioner's custodial interrogation becomes necessary. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. In the first information it is stated that the first informant was induced in a Telegram App to invest for digital marketing with assurance of good returns. The first informant had allegedly transferred a total sum of Rs.36,04,000/- through different bank channels to various bank accounts as instructed in the Telegram App. 7. During the course of investigation, it was found that huge amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was transferred to the bank - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32819 CRL.P No. 6877 of 2026 account of the petitioner on different dates and he has withdrawn the same in installments. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said amount was transferred on instruction from the friend of the petitioner and was also withdrawn by his friend using the ATM card of the petitioner, there is no material to accept the said submission. 8. Considering the nature of allegation found in the first information and the material collected by the investigation officer during of investigation, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be necessary, so as to find out involvement of other persons in the fraud committed. Though notices are issued to the petitioner, he has not cooperated with the police for a considerable period of time. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63