BAIL APPLN./4043/2026 of SHIHABUDHEEN Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 24 September 2026

O R D E R

% 24.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) has been filed seeking grant of anticipatory bail in E-FIR No. 196/2026, registered at P.S. Cyber South-West, Delhi, under Sections 318(4), 340 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’).

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is a businessman and had no knowledge that the amount received in his bank account was connected with any alleged cyber fraud. According to him, the amounts were received at the instance of one Shamsuddin towards outstanding business dues. It is further submitted that the transactions referred to in the four NCRP complaints were made on the same day and at the instance of the same person and cannot be treated as separate instances of involvement of the Applicant.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the Applicant had joined the investigation and disputes the allegation that he was evasive or non- cooperative. Reliance is placed upon Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1022, to contend that after the Applicant was released by the learned JMFC, Malappuram, on account of infirmities in the grounds of arrest, he cannot again be taken into custody except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the alleged cheated amount of ₹1,93,554/- was credited directly into the bank account of the Applicant and was withdrawn through cheque on the same day. The said account is also stated to be linked with four NCRP complaints. It is further submitted that though the Applicant joined the investigation pursuant to notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, he remained evasive and non-cooperative.

6. Learned APP submits that custodial interrogation is required for tracing the source and further movement of the funds, recovery of digital/electronic evidence and identification of other persons involved.

7. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State and perused the record.

8. At this stage, the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses a direct money trail to the bank account maintained in the name of the Applicant. The alleged cheated amount of ₹1,93,554/- was credited into the said account and is stated to have been withdrawn through cheque on the very same day. The receipt of the amount in the Applicant’s account is not disputed. What is disputed is the character and source of the transaction.

9. The explanation that the amount represented outstanding business dues payable by Shamsuddin cannot be accepted at face value at the stage of anticipatory bail. Whether the amount was received pursuant to a genuine business transaction, the circumstances in which it came to be credited into the Applicant’s account, and the manner in which it was thereafter dealt with are matters which require investigation.

10. Similarly, the mere fact that the Applicant’s account is stated to be linked with four NCRP complaints cannot, by itself, establish his involvement in four separate offences. However, the Applicant’s explanation that all such transactions were made on the same day at the instance of the same person is also not a fact which can be treated as established merely on his assertion. The said explanation requires verification during investigation.

11. The reliance placed upon Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (supra) does not advance the Applicant’s prayer for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court in the said judgment dealt with the procedure to be followed where an accused, after being released on account of breach of the constitutional safeguards governing arrest, is sought to be taken into custody again. The judgment does not lay down that an earlier release on account of an infirm arrest, by itself, creates a right to anticipatory bail. It regulates the manner in which fresh custody or re-arrest may thereafter be sought and mandates compliance with the safeguards prescribed therein.

12. In the present case, the Investigating Agency has identified the specific purposes for which custodial interrogation is sought, including tracing the source and further movement of the funds, recovery of digital/electronic evidence and identification of other persons involved. Considering the direct money trail to the Applicant’s account, the withdrawal of the alleged cheated amount therefrom and the aspects which remain to be investigated, this Court does not find any ground to extend the protection of anticipatory bail to the Applicant.

13. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

14. It is, however, clarified that in case the Investigating Agency seeks fresh custody or re-arrest of the Applicant consequent upon his earlier release, it shall proceed strictly in accordance with law and comply with the procedure and safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol (supra), as applicable to the facts of the present case.

15. Needless to state, nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/prg/m