BAIL APPLN. 692/2026 $~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 692/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5322/2026 MOHD AHMAD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Astik Gupta, Mr. Amir Ansari and Mr. Kuldeep Shukla, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. SI Ashish Kumar, P.S.: Cyber South. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 17.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 5323/2026 (exemption) Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed-of. CRL.M.A. 5324/2026 By way of the present application filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), the petitioner seeks exemption from filing on record the status report filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned trial court. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, the application is allowed. 3. The application stands disposed-of. BAIL APPLN. 692/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5322/2026 (interim protection) 4. By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the BNSS, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.38/2025 dated 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 19/02/2026 at 12:14:35 BAIL APPLN. 692/2026 17.06.2025 registered under sections 318(4)/319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) at P.S.: Cyber Police Station, South Delhi. 5. Mr. Astik Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.2,16,015/- in his account held at the Yes Bank, since one Abhay Thakur, who had befriended him at the crockery shop where both of them worked, had requested that he be permitted to use the petitioner’s bank account to receive some money that had to come to the latter from Saudi Arabia, since Abhay Thakur’s own account had been blocked. 6. Mr. Gupta draws attention to what was recorded in order dated 28.112025 passed by the learned Sessions Court while rejecting petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail, and in particular, to the following portion of that order: “3. The application is opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who submits that the case involves a large- scale cyber fraud. An unknown fraudster impersonated the employer of the complainant’s company by creating a fake WhatsApp profile in his name and induced an employee to transfer ₹28 lakhs to bank accounts provided by the fraudster. The cheated amount was siphoned off immediately. During investigation, ₹28 lakhs were found credited to the bank account of co-accused Santosh Kumar, who stands arrested. The present applicant’s bank account was identified as a second-layer mule account through which ₹2,16,015 of the cheated amount was routed and withdrawn. Despite service of notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, the applicant failed to join the investigation. The State seeks custodial interrogation to trace the money trail, identify other co- conspirators, and recover digital evidence.” 7. Counsel argues that the petitioner is a 20-year old boy residing in Lucknow, with no criminal antecedents; and has in fact fallen prey to the representations of Abhay Thakur. 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 19/02/2026 at 12:14:35 BAIL APPLN. 692/2026 8. Issue notice. 9. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP appears for the State on advance copy; accepts notice; and submits that the petitioner’s bank account was used as a second-layer mule account; and is part of the larger cyber fraud. Learned APP submits that the said sum of Rs.2,16,015/- was credited into the petitioner’s account on 22.04.2025 and was withdrawn by a self-cheque on the very same day. 10. Learned APP submits that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary in order to unearth the true nature and extent of the cyber fraud. 11. Upon query, learned counsel for the petitioner informs the court that the petitioner works at a crockery shop as a helper; and his monthly income is about Rs.12,000/-. 12. Considering the allegations in the FIR, the nature of the cyber fraud alleged, and the fact that a large amount of Rs.2,16,015/- first came to be credited in the petitioner’s bank account, and was then withdrawn on the very same day by a self-cheque, it appears that the role of the petitioner in the entire scheme of things requires to be investigated closely. 13. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 14. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 17, 2026/ss 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 19/02/2026 at 12:14:35