Anticipatory bail may be denied in cybercrime and economic offences due to their gravity, the need for custodial interrogation to trace money trails, and the necessity to protect public trust in digital financial systems.

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11203012250526 of 2025, registered with Chorvad Police Station, District: Junagadh for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2) and 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. Outlined facts of the case are that the accused persons, though knowing that in the Axix Bank Account of the accused, money of cyber fraud is being deposited and thereby, got an amount of Rs.4,23,10,781/- with mala fide intention to get illegal financial benefits and transferred the said amount into different accounts and thereby, committed the offence in question for which, FIR in question came to be registered.

3.1 The present applicant had firstly moved the trial Court concerned by way of filing a Criminal Misc. Application No. 102 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected vide order dated 08.04.2026 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Keshod, being aggrieved thereby, the applicant is before this Court by this application.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Dhruvin Bhuptani for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent – State.

4.1 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant is not named in the FIR and there is nothing on record to connect the applicant in the crime in question and thus, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. It is submitted that no specific role is attributed to the present applicant in the alleged offence and that, the applicant is arraigned only upon statement of co-accused. The learned advocate for the applicant would further submit that the allegation regarding opening of bank account is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the applicant was working as a Sales Manager in the bank and it was not within his work ambit or duties. It is submitted that the main accused i.e. Hitesh Nathabhai Chapda whose account is in question, was not opened by the applicant but by one Ajay Rameshbhai Shekhda. He submitted that even as per the standard banking procedure, in every account opening, it is mandatory to have authorization and signature of the Branch Manager and in the case on hand, the account bears signature of the then Branch Manager namely Bhavesh Sagothiya and thus, here also, no name of the applicant herein is there and therefore, it is only after due diligence that the four accounts have been opened by the present applicant and confirmed by the Branch Manager and the same are opened by the genuine persons and not by fictitious persons.

4.2 It is submitted that despite of the above documentary evidence, the investigation agency is unnecessary harassing the present applicant on the ground that the applicant has misused the said account.

4.3 He submitted that the applicant has cooperated in investigation and gave a detailed statement and it is only because of the father of the present applicant being repeatedly called to the police station, subjected to harassment, intimidation and threats by the police, that the present applicant has a reasonable and genuine apprehension that he may be arrested.

4.4 It is further submitted that the entire case is based on the documentary evidence and no custodial interrogation is required.

4.5 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that even otherwise the ingredients of the offence alleged against the present applicant are not satisfied.

4.6 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such that custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant will keep him