BAIL APPLN./2046/2026 of AMIT KUMAR Vs THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI on 23 September 2026

O R D E R

% 23.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 82/2025 registered at P.S. Cyber South, under Sections 112(2)/317(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named as an accused in the FIR and has been implicated subsequently on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Abhishek Kumar. It is submitted that the petitioner has no role in the alleged transaction and that there is no independent material connecting him with the alleged withdrawal of the cheated amount. It is further submitted that the petitioner is about 25 years of age.

4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that the FIR was registered at P.S. Cyber South on the basis of analysis of NCRP/I4C data, technical surveillance and the financial trail relating to mule bank accounts allegedly being used for receipt and withdrawal of cheated money arising out of cyber-fraud complaints from different parts of the country.

5. Learned APP for the State submits that during investigation, Bandhan Bank Account No. 20200112610491, standing in the name of co-accused Abhishek Kumar, was identified as a mule account. The said account was reportedly involved in eight NCRP complaints and reflected transactions of approximately ₹25 lakhs over a period of about three months. It is submitted that substantial credits were received in the said account from victims of cyber fraud and that the corresponding debit transactions were predominantly through ATM withdrawals.

6. It is further submitted by the learned APP that, during investigation, co- accused Abhishek Kumar disclosed that he had handed over his bank account credentials, ATM card, passbook, bank kit and SIM to the present petitioner, allegedly known as “Lalu”, for monetary consideration of ₹10,000/-. According to the learned APP, the said account was thereafter used for receiving, withdrawing and circulating the proceeds of cyber-crime. It is submitted that the role of the petitioner is not being attributed solely on the basis of the disclosure statement, but is required to be considered in conjunction with the financial trail, NCRP complaints, account transactions, ATM withdrawals, CCTV footage and other material collected during investigation.

7. Learned APP for the State further submits that the petitioner used to obtain mule bank accounts from other persons for monetary consideration, through which the cheated amount was received and thereafter withdrawn.

8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no CCTV footage showing the petitioner making any withdrawal from the ATM and that the bank account in question does not stand in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no independent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged transactions and that the prosecution case, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, rests essentially upon the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and has perused the material placed on record.

10. The FIR was registered pursuant to information regarding the use of mule bank accounts for receiving and withdrawing proceeds of cyber fraud. During investigation, the bank account of co-accused Abhishek Kumar was identified as one such account. The FIR records that Abhishek Kumar disclosed the name of a person called “Lalu”, who had allegedly obtained his bank and identification details and thereafter taken possession of his ATM card, passbook and bank kit upon payment of ₹10,000/- as commission.

11. The prosecution case is that the aforesaid account was subsequently used for circulation and withdrawal of cheated money and that the petitioner is the person referred to as “Lalu”. The State has also relied upon the financial trail, account transactions, technical surveillance and other material collected during investigation to attribute a role to the petitioner.

12. At this stage, the Court is required to consider the material available against the petitioner and the nature of the allegations while examining his prayer for anticipatory bail. The petitioner’s contention regarding the absence of CCTV footage or the fact that the bank account does not stand in his name would require consideration in the context of the other material collected during investigation.

13. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

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

15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/ys/P