JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J. 

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.167 dated 25.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 238 of BNS 2023, at Police Station Cyber Crime, NIT Faridabad, District Faridabad.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the complainant namely Sushma Bhatia resident of Faridabad in his complaint made to the police has stated that on 16.06.2025, she received a call on her mobile phone from a person who claimed to be a CID Inspector from the Mumbai Crime Branch and falsely informed her that she had been arrested. Subsequently, she received a video call on her mobile phone wherein a person posing as a police officer informed her that she was an accused in the Naresh Goyal Jet Airways Money Laundering Case and that she had been placed under ‘house arrest/digital arrest.’ She was further threatened that formal orders would be issued and that she would have to pay an amount of Rs.6,80,00,000/- in connection with the said case. She was also threatened that further proceedings would be conducted through WhatsApp video calls involving senior officers and a judge, and was instructed not to disclose the matter to anyone or leave her house. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband, by playing foul play, managed to leave the house on the pretext of taking a bath at around 08:00 AM and reported the matter to the concerned Police Station. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that the complainant has been a victim of cyber fraud. On these set of allegations, instant FIR came to be registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel asserts that the instant FIR has been registered against unknown persons and the petitioner has not been named as an accused in the FIR and hence there is not direct allegations made against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not even named in the FIR. His name has been surfaced only during the course of investigation on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence and cannot form the sole basis for his implication. It is further contended that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the petitioner, nor is there any financial, electronic, or documentary material available with the prosecution linking him with the alleged offence. He has further argued that there is no allegation that the petitioner operated any bank account or had any direct nexus with the transactions in question. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner is an innocent individual who has been wrongfully accused of an offence he never committed. Moreover, the present FIR is not legally maintainable against the petitioner as there is no allegation of embezzlement or misappropriation directly attributable to him. Learned counsel asserts that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. Learned counsel has further iterated that since the co-accused have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-8) and challan against co-accused/main accused already stands presented, the petitioner is entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail. Since investigation stands concluded, there is nothing to be recovered from the petitioner and hence his custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified. Furthermore, the petitioner is merely 23 years old and incarceration at this young age, particularly under the present circumstances, would cause irreversible damage to his career and future prospects. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and undertakes to fully cooperate with the Investigating Agency. On the