AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 80/2026 dated 02nd May, 2026, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Crime Branch, Delhi, under Sections 318(4)/319/340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).
The petitioner had previously filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge-02/Special Judge (NDPS), North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, which was dismissed vide order dated 22nd June, 2026, in Bail Matters 1500/2026.
The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the material on record, is as follows:
In January 2026, the complainant came into contact with a woman, who introduced herself as “Ananya Verma” through WhatsApp. Through continuous communication, inducement and false representations, the complainant was persuaded to invest an amount of Rs. 36,40,000/- (“cheated amount”) on a purported online trading platform which displayed fictitious profits.
The cheated amount was found to have been transferred to multiple bank accounts, forming a layered structure designed to conceal the source and destination of the proceeds of crime.
During the course of interrogation, one of the co-accused persons, namely, Gagandeep Singh @ Gurmukh, disclosed that he maintained a bank account with SBI, into which Rs. 7,50,000/- of the cheated amount had been credited on 28th January, 2026. He further disclosed that he had shared his account details with another co-accused person, namely, Rakesh Kumar @ Tony, to receive money in lieu of commission. Rakesh had represented to him that his female friend, i.e., the petitioner, was expecting funds from abroad and required another bank account to receive them. Acting on this representation, Gagandeep permitted Rakesh to use his account.
After receiving Rs. 7,50,000/-, Gagandeep withdrew Rs. 7,00,000/- in cash by cheque and handed it over to Rakesh, transferred Rs. 25,000/- to the number provided by Rakesh, and retained the remaining Rs. 25,000/-.
Thereafter, Rakesh joined the investigation and admitted that he had obtained the bank account details of Gagandeep to route funds received from the petitioner. He further disclosed that after Gagandeep handed over the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-, he had delivered the same to the petitioner in exchange for a commission. He also disclosed that Rs. 1,00,000/- had been credited to his own bank account at the instance of the petitioner, of which he had transferred Rs. 90,000/- to another bank account on her instructions.
During investigation, it was found that the said amount of Rs. 90,000/-had been credited to the bank account of the petitioner, who thereafter transferred Rs. 51,000/- to another bank account.
Both the co-accused persons, i.e., Gagandeep and Rakesh, were arrested on 27th May, 2026, after technical investigation and examination of WhatsApp chats revealed that Rakesh had facilitated the diversion of the cheated amount and induced Gagandeep to permit the use of his bank account on the promise of a commission.
The grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been opposed on the following grounds:
Although the petitioner has joined the investigation, her responses during interrogation have been evasive and unsatisfactory, and she has failed to provide a consistent explanation for the receipt of Rs. 90,000/- in her bank account and the subsequent transfer of Rs. 51,000/-.
Key incriminating evidence, including cheque books, welcome kits and ATM cards pertaining to the bank accounts in question, is yet to be recovered from the co-accused persons.
The cheated amount is yet to be fully recovered, and the possibility of further diversion, layering or concealment of the proceeds of crime cannot be ruled out at this stage.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to trace the complete money trail across its various layers, identify the ultimate beneficiaries and establish the role of other persons involved in the conspiracy.
Custodial interrogation is also required to effect recoveries and unearth the conspiracy, which may not be possible through mere questioning while the petitioner remains protected from arrest.
The following submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner in support of grant of anticipatory bail:
The petitioner is a 47-year-old woman residing in Punjab, and has two minor children. She comes from an economically modest background and earns her livelihood by providing small loans to women in her village through informal micro-financing arrangements.
The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has deep roots in society.
The case of the prosecution rests substantially on the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons, without any independent corroboration of the allegations against the petitioner.
No overt act has been attributed to the petitioner apart from the receipt of Rs. 90,000/- from Rakesh in her bank account.
The petitioner had borrowed the aforesaid amount from Rakesh in the ordinary course of their longstanding financial dealings, without any knowledge or reason to suspect that it originated from unlawful activity.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, as the prosecution case rests entirely on documentary and digital evidence, including banking records and electronic transactions, which is already in the possession of the Investigating Agency.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.
At the outset, it is apposite to set out the scope of the power of this Court to grant anticipatory bail.
Reliance may be placed upon the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others Versus State of Bihar and Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and must be exercised with caution in serious cases, where its grant may result in a miscarriage of justice and significantly hamper the investigation, as it may lead to tampering with or destruction of evidence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
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. 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.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
With regard to the need for custodial interrogation as a factor affecting the grant of anticipatory bail, in the case of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157, it has been held as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
21.It was sought to be argued that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and are fully cooperating with the investigating agency and therefore, there is no need for custodial interrogation.
22.The petitioners might have been cooperating with the investigation and they might have been interrogated also by the investigating agency so far but, at the same time, we should not overlook the fact that by grant of anticipatory bail, we may come in the way of the investigating agency if at all it wants custodial interrogation.
23.As held by this Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391 that it would be preposterous as a proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is not required that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be required the court is obliged to consider the entire case put up by the State, more particularly, the nature of the offence, the punishment provided in law for such offence etc.
24.It is needless to say that for the purpose of custodial interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for. Whether any case for police remand is made out or not, it is for the Court concerned to look into.
25.In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the view that we should not come in the way of the investigating agency at this point of time and the investigation should be permitted to proceed further. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)
Fruitful reference may also be made to the case of P. Chidambaram Versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, wherein, the Supreme Court has observed that in cases involving economic offences, the grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate effective interrogation and collection of evidence, and that such relief should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced below:
“xxx xxx xxx
78.Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510] , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. xxx xxx xxx
81.Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] , the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35)
“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 Page 7 of 10 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.”
xxx xxx xxx
83.Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
84.In a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages of “placement”, “layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin” and “interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets”, it requires systematic and analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As held in Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said to have been issued and some response have been received by the Department. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the Enforcement Directorate, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order [P. Chidambaram v. CBI, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703]. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)
Having regard to the aforementioned judgments and the submissions made before this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to help ascertain the full extent of the alleged fraud, identify the multiple layers of transactions and identify other persons who may be involved.
This Court also notes that a substantial portion of the cheated amount remains unrecovered, and its ultimate destination is yet to be traced.
Furthermore, the alleged involvement of the petitioner is supported by the receipt of Rs. 90,000/- of the cheated amount in her bank account and the subsequent transfer of Rs. 51,000/- to another bank account. Thus, the allegations against her do not rest solely on the disclosure statements made by the co-accused persons, but are also supported by banking transactions that require further investigation. There is independent documentary and banking corroboration of petitioner’s connection with the financial trail.
Pertinently, this Court notes that despite joining the investigation, the petitioner has failed to offer a consistent and satisfactory explanation for the receipt of the said amount, thereby reinforcing the need for her custodial interrogation.
Besides the need for custodial interrogation, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences are serious, given their economic character and the wider implications of such financial fraud for society as a whole. This Court also takes note of the fact that the cheated amount of Rs. 36,40,000/- has not yet been fully recovered and the complete financial trail of the cheated funds is still under investigation.
Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not consider this to be a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
The present application is dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.
Needless to state, any observations made in the present order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present application, and shall neither influence the outcome of the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.