Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prabh Deep Kaur at Patiala House Court, dismissed the application filed by Namita Gupta under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) on November 3. The FIR was registered at Police Station Cyber, South West District, under Sections 112(2), 318(4), 317(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).Refusing relief, the Court said it was “not inclined to extend the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail to the Applicant at this stage.”As recorded in the order, the FIR followed a preliminary enquiry entered vide GD No. 23A dated October 24, 2026. During analysis of mule account data on the NCRP/I4C portal, the police came across an account in the applicant’s name linked to two complaints, one classified as “Trading Fraud” and the other as “Digital Arrest”.The prosecution’s case was that “the account figured as a Layer-3 account and was allegedly used for withdrawal of cheated money through cheques, indicating its suspected involvement in an organised cyber fraud syndicate.”On the day of the enquiry, three police officials went to her house for verification. According to the prosecution, she “did not open gate, talked from inside”, refused to disclose the source of the money, refused to receive a notice to join the enquiry and “called 112”. The order also records that “She insisted for FIR Copy and Notice U/s 35(3) BNSS. She refused to show mobile phone. Process continued for 6 hours.”The police then issued a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS on October 29 directing her to appear at the Cyber police station at Bhikaji Cama Place the same afternoon. The State said she again refused to open the gate or receive the notice, and the notice was affixed at her house.Counsel for the applicant argued that she was not part of any cyber fraud syndicate and that her “lawful assertion of legal and constitutional rights on 24.10.2026” had been “misconstrued and used as a pretext for registration of the FIR.”It was contended that police officials had come to her residence in plain clothes, tried to seize her phone without a warrant and stayed for about eight hours, which amounted to harassment and engaged Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Her calls to the emergency helplines 112 and 1930 at the time, it was submitted, bore out her account.On the merits, counsel argued that “Mere utilisation of her bank account, without evidence of conscious involvement, does not establish criminal culpability”, that her account may have been misused by cyber criminals without her knowledge, and that her alleged role was “confined to the last stage of the money trail and is, at best, peripheral.” Since the bank statements and NCRP records were already preserved with banks and government authorities, custodial interrogation was said to be unnecessary.The applicant offered to furnish her bank statements and to submit her phone “in a sealed cover for targeted forensic examination of relevant banking applications and communication logs, subject to adequate safeguards to protect her personal photographs and private data.” Counsel also pointed out that she is a woman and “the sole caregiver of her 75-year-old bedridden father”, and relied on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliya, (1977), for the principle that “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception.”On maintainability, counsel told the Court that an earlier application had not been decided on merits and that the present one was filed before the competent court “in view of the Investigating Agency’s own submission.” She prayed that the Investigating Officer or arresting officer be directed to release her on bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety, on such conditions as the Court thought fit.The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the plea on the strength of the Investigating Officer’s reply. The State argued that custodial interrogation was needed to recover her mobile phone, bank kit, cheque books and ATM card and to trace the cheated amount allegedly withdrawn through cheques.According to the State, her account had been used as a mule account linked to two cyber fraud complaints, “indicating her alleged involvement in an organised cybercrime syndicate operating in South West District.” The prosecution said she had been non-cooperative, had refused to comply with notices and had “called the police emergency helpline 112 during the investigation.” It also feared that, if protected, she might destroy evidence and conceal the identities of the end beneficiaries and accomplices.The Court answered this in the negative. It noted that it was admitted that the police had visited her house on October 24 and that she had not joined the investigation. Even taking her grievance about that visit at its highest, the Court said, “The apprehension of accused/applicant even if considered as reasonable, even then there is no reason why accused/applicant has not joined the investigation on 29.10.2026 subsequent to service of second notice.”The Court further recorded that she “has not joined the investigation till date nor has even surrendered her mobile phone to the IO concerned.”On the complaint that the officers tried to take her phone on the spot, the Investigating Officer explained during arguments that in cyber fraud cases “elaborate time cannot be given as accused may use the time to erase the valuable data and may also alert the other persons involved in the chain because invariably in cyber fraud cases the gang is operating through mobile network only and some times otherwise they are not even acquainted with each other.”The Court accepted this, observing: “The explanation given by the IO concerned seems probable and justified.”The Court held that it does not. It said the applicant’s “willingness to submit her mobile phone for limited forensic examination, subject to conditions, does not sufficiently address all the investigative requirements highlighted by the Investigating Officer.”It noted that the allegations “require thorough investigation to ascertain the Applicant’s role in the alleged transactions, the manner in which the cheated amount was withdrawn through cheques and the identity of the ultimate beneficiaries”, and that “At this stage, the possibility of further custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out.”On the humanitarian plea, the Court said it had considered that she is a woman and the sole caregiver of her father, but “the said humanitarian consideration has to be balanced against the nature of allegations, the alleged involvement of her bank account in multiple cyber fraud complaints and the requirements of an effective investigation.”Turning to Balchand, the Court observed: “The settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception does not confer an absolute right to anticipatory bail, and the relief has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case.”The application was accordingly dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations “are limited to the adjudication of the present application and shall not tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”
Click Here For The Original Source.
——————————————————–
