UKHC010108632026 2026:UHC:5071 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SABA/15/2026 Krishnakant ……..Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand …….Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. By means of the present application, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail with a prayer that, in the event of his arrest or being taken into judicial custody in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 370 of 2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, at Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, he be released on bail on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. The applicant further prays that appropriate directions be issued to the Investigating Officer and/or the learned trial court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in the aforesaid case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant against unknown persons alleging that a PDF file was received UKHC010108632026 2026:UHC:5071 on his mobile phone and upon opening the same, it displayed to be a non-bailable warrant allegedly issued by the Sessions Court, Dehradun, directing his appearance before the Court and further stating that, in case of failure to deposit an amount of ₹30,000/- through the QR Code mentioned therein, the said warrant would be executed forthwith. It is further alleged that believing the contents of the document to be genuine, the informant immediately transferred a sum of ₹30,000/- through the said QR Code; that, subsequently, upon discussing the incident with his friends, he realised that he had been duped by unknown fraudsters under the guise of a so-called digital arrest. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that during the course of investigation several persons were interrogated and arrested; that, the name of the present applicant surfaced solely on the basis of the alleged confessional statements of certain co-accused persons made before the Investigating Officer while they were in police custody; that, such statements are inadmissible in evidence and have no substantive evidentiary value in law. He would further submit that the Investigating Officer has already completed the investigation and submitted the charge- sheet before the competent court; that, the statement of the informant, recorded during investigation, does not contain any specific allegation whatsoever against the present applicant, nor does it attribute any overt act or role to him in the commission of the alleged offence. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant UKHC010108632026 2026:UHC:5071 further submits that no material has been collected during investigation to establish that any part of the defrauded amount was ever received by, transferred to, or came into the possession or control of the applicant or any of his family members; that, the entire investigation stands concluded and the charge-sheet has already been filed; therefore, no purpose would be served by subjecting the applicant to custodial interrogation; that, co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and, consequently, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation, wherein it has been held that where the accused has not been arrested during investigation and the charge-sheet has already been filed, ordinarily there remains no necessity for custodial interrogation and the grant of bail deserves favourable consideration, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the protective relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the anticipatory bail application and submitted that, during the course of investigation, it has surfaced that the present applicant is the kingpin and mastermind of the alleged cyber fraud; that, a printer along with the format/template of the forged non-bailable warrants, allegedly used for duping innocent persons under the pretext of 'digital arrest', has been recovered from the UKHC010108632026 2026:UHC:5071 office premises of the applicant; that, the investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary to identify other accomplices. 8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties; the nature and gravity of the allegations contained in the F.I.R.; the fact that the F.I.R. was initially lodged against unknown persons; the contention of the applicant that his implication is primarily based upon the confessional statements of co-accused persons; the submission that no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that any amount of the defrauded money was received by or transferred to the applicant or his family members; the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation; and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, the investigation can proceed without subjecting the applicant to custodial interrogation. Consequently, the applicant has succeeded in making out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that, in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No.370 of 2025 registered at P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur, District-Haridwar, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Court concerned, subject to the UKHC010108632026 2026:UHC:5071 following conditions: (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with the investigation as well as the trial proceedings; (ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case; (iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or attempt to influence any witness in any manner whatsoever; (iv) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned and, if he possesses a passport, shall furnish the details thereof before the Investigating Officer/Court concerned; (v) The applicant shall regularly appear before the Court concerned on each and every date fixed, unless exempted in accordance with law; (vi) The applicant shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and shall maintain good conduct throughout the pendency of the proceedings. 10. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the prosecution to move an appropriate application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail in accordance with law. 11. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 19.06.2026 Mamta