The necessity of custodial interrogation in cases involving cyber crimes is crucial, particularly for prime accused.

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioner/A.1 seeking bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No.761 of 2025 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318 (4), 308 (5), 319 (2), 336 (3), 338, 338, 111 (7), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 66-C , 66-D of Information and Technology Act.

2. The facts of the case are that the S.I of Police, Cyber Crime, lodged a report stating that he received reliable information that two individuals from Hyderabad who are bank account suppliers sending the details to unknown persons on commission basis intending to use mule accounts for cyber fraud activities and these individuals were reported to be moving around KPHB area, he informed the same to his superior officers and immediately proceeded to search KPHB area where they noticed two individuals moving suspiciously and immediately they searched their bags in the presence of witnesses and found a bunch of mule bank accounts, cheque books, ATM cards and ID Proofs. Hence, the said individuals were taken into custody and produced before the Court. According to the complainant they collect ATM cards, pan cards and use these I.D proofs and open mule bank accounts for using the same in cyber crimes. Hence, complaint was registered against the accused for the said offences.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Ghouse Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the said allegations and material part of investigation has already been completed except filing of charge sheet. A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.25 in this crime were already enlarged on bail by the concerned trial Court, as such, prayed this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter opposing bail stating that petitioner herein is the prime accused in this case and his custodial interrogation is necessary. If anticipatory bail is granted, he will repeat the same offence, he will not cooperate with the investigation and he may tamper the evidence. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel and the material on record, the petitioner herein is involved in cyber crimes. Though other accused in this crime were released on bail, they were already remanded and released on regular bail. This petitioner being prime accused, his custodial interrogation is necessary in investigating the case. Further learned Additional Public Prosecutor also filed document showing involvement of this petitioner. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.