In cases of organized cyber crime or serious economic offences, the societal impact and the necessity of custodial interrogation for investigative integrity outweigh any potential private compromise, precluding the grant of anticipatory bail regardless of the victim's financial condition.

ORDER :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with FIR No.12/2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station (ATS & SOG), District ATS & SOG for the offence(s) under Sections308(6), 318(4), 319(2), 111(4) & 204 of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, had fairly conceded that the first anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant, being S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9766/2025 (Naveen Temani vs. State of Rajasthan), came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025.

3. It was then submitted that S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2370/2025, instituted by the present applicant seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was dismissed on 30.04.2025. It was also pointed out that the said order was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 53217/2025, which too came to be dismissed on 15.10.2025.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present application for anticipatory bail has been filed on account of changed circumstances, as a compromise has been arrived at between the applicant and the complainant in respect of a commercial dispute inter-se them, and considering the limited nature of the dispute, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. It was further submitted that the applicant is a bona fide individual, presently residing in Dubai and employed as a Sales Officer. It was apprised to the Court that the applicant was holding certain cryptocurrency as part of his personal savings, and on account of financial necessity, the same was transacted with the co-accused, who paid a certain amount towards its purchase. It was urged that such transaction, in itself, cannot be construed as implicating the applicant in any alleged act of cyber fraud.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan and learned counsel appearing for the complainant, have vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is left with no liquidity to sustain herself or to bear the expenses of medicines and hospitalization, apart from her pensionary emoluments of Rs. 35,000/- per month, and that the complainant is devoid of any means of subsistence to maintain herself at the fag end of her life, particularly in view of her critical medical condition.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the present case is a classic instance of ‘digital arrest’, wherein an 83 years old lady was fraudulently subjected to such digital coercion and was compelled to transfer her pensionary benefits/savings from her bank account, amounting to Rs. 80 lakhs. It was submitted that on account of the said incident, the complainant suffered severe mental trauma, remained under depression, and was admitted to the hospital for a considerable period of time.

8. It was further submitted that the applicant is the kingpin of the entire operation, who, in connivance with other co-accused, has committed an international cyber-crime and extorted an amount of Rs. 80 lakhs, which was subsequently repatriated to Dubai. It was contended that out of the said amount, the applicant purchased Bitcoin/USDT, as revealed during the course of a detailed investigation. It was submitted that as many as 34 mule accounts, at different layers (layer one and