Anticipatory bail should be cautiously granted in cybercrime cases due to their gravity, impact on public trust in digital systems, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to uncover complex money trails and financial layers.

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 No. 11200052260002 of 2026, registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Valsad for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

3. The case of the prosecution at the nutshell is that one Shahid Shamshadkhan had open his account in SBI Bank wherein the amount of cyber crime was deposited at the instance of present applicant, and thus, has committed cyber fraud of Rs.7,90,000/-, pursuance to which the FIR has been lodged.

3.1. The applicant had preferred an anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad, vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.127 of 2026, which came to be rejected vide order dated 07.03.2026, hence, the present application.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Mrudul M. Barot for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent – State.

5. The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that there is delay of approximately 11 months in lodging of the FIR and there is no proper explanation of delay in the FIR. He would further submit that the only evidence against the present applicant is based on the statement of the co-accused, and therefore, relying only on the statement of the co-accused no action against the present applicant can be taken.

5.1. The learned advocate would further submit that the present applicant is innocent person and he has not played any role as alleged in the FIR. He would also submit that even from the bare reading of the complainant, no offence as alleged by the complainant is made out, and therefore, continuation of the proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, argued to allow the present applicant.

6. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Chintan Dave, appearing on behalf of the respondent – State would oppose to grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and requests not to entertain this application. He would further submit that from the statement of the bank account holder – Sahid Samsadkhan and also from the statement of accused Abdula Aarif Ansari, the complicity of the present applicant is surfaced on record during the investigation.

6.1. Learned APP would further submit that there are seven complaints of cyber fraud lodged against the present applicant with regard to the account maintained with A.U. Small Finance Bank bearing account No.2301248850183187, and that various complaints are also lodged in the bank account with Ujjivan Small Finance Bank in the name of applicant’s sister Mariyam Aarif Ansari bearing account No.21311240049525, and over and above, the applicant has also taken commission of Rs.10,000/- on each account, which were open with the instance of Yunus Abdul Majid Shaikh for the purpose of depositing the cyber fraud amount.

6.2. Learned APP would also submit that as per the statement of Section 183 of the BNSS, Adil Aarif Khan who has account with the Bank of Baroda bearing account No.52870100001292, the present applicant has used the said account f