Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1/13
BAIL MATTERS 2325/2026
Sh. Nagaraja Vs. State.
FIR No. 0038/2026
PS (CYBER NEW DELHI)
22.09.2026
Present : Sh. Ajay Aggarwal, Ld. Spl. PP for the State.
Sh. M. Asad Beig and Ms. Srishti, Ld. Counsels for
accused/applicant.
ORDER
1. Matter is listed for orders for grant anticipatory bail of the
applicant/proposed accused Nagaraja s/o Sh. Ayyadurai.
2. It has been argued on behalf of the Applicant that the
Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the
allegations levelled against the Applicant do not warrant custodial
interrogation. The Applicant is ready and willing to join and cooperate
with the investigation. It is further submitted that the Applicant is not a
flight risk and has permanent roots in society. There is no likelihood of
the Applicant tampering with the evidence or influencing any
prosecution witness. Custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not
necessary for the purposes of investigation, particularly when the
relevant documents and evidence are already available with the
Investigating Agency. It has further been argued that, pursuant to the
order dated 05.09.2026 passed by the Court of Sh. Dr. Yadvender Singh,
Ld. ASJ-05, West, Delhi, the Applicant duly complied with the
directions contained therein and joined the investigation on 12.09.2026.
-- 1 of 13 --
2/13
The said fact was also admitted by the Investigating Officer in the reply
dated 17.09.2026. It is submitted that the earlier bail application was
dismissed on a technical ground, namely, territorial jurisdiction, and
liberty was granted to the Applicant to approach the concerned Court,
vide order dated 17.09.2026. It has further been argued that no specific
overt act or individual role has been attributed to the present
Applicants/Accused persons in the alleged incident. As per the contents
of the FIR, the offences alleged do not fall within the category of
heinous crimes. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate any fresh
circumstance making the custodial arrest of the Applicants
indispensable. It is further submitted that substantial documentary and
electronic evidence has already been collected/seized from the alleged
call-centre premises. The prosecution has also analysed the CDR/CAF
records, which fact was admitted by the Investigating Officer in the
reply dated 17.09.2026. The said reply does not identify any specific
outstanding recovery from either of the Applicants which can only be
effected through custodial interrogation. It is further argued that the
alleged disclosure statements of the co-accused require independent
corroboration and, by themselves, cannot establish the criminal
involvement of the Applicants. Mere CDR connectivity or
communication between the persons concerned does not, in itself,
establish the contents, purpose or criminal intention of such
communications. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to
demonstrate the specific ingredients of Sections 112(2), 317(2), 317(5)
and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against each
Applicant separately. Ld. Counsel for the Accused/Applicant has relied
-- 2 of 13 --
3/13
upon the following judgments:
1. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026;
2. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2011;
3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273;
4. Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 372;
5. Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No.
943 of 2023, 3 S.C.R. 697;
6. Shri P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal
No. 1603 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9269 of 2019).
7. Ravjeet Singh Vs. CBI, Bail Appln. 328/2026, Crl. M.A. 7496/2026, Crl.
M.A. 7495/2026 and Crl. M(Bail) 170/26 decided on 12.03.2026.;
8. Furkhan @ Kabir Deshmukh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Arising out
of SLP (Crl.) No. (s). 42/2025;
3. On the other hand, Ld. Spl. PP for the State, relying upon the
reply filed by the Investigating Officer, submits that custodial
interrogation of the Applicant is necessary for the recovery and
examination of his mobile phones, SIM cards, computers, bank-account
records, digital-payment accounts, electronic communications, login
credentials and other electronic devices allegedly used for operating
and controlling the call centre. It is further submitted that custodial
interrogation of the Applicant is required to identify the remaining
callers and other associates, trace other mule bank accounts, ascertain
the source from which the data of prospective victims was procured,
identify the ultimate beneficiaries of the cheated amounts, recover the
proceeds of crime and confront the Applicant with the documentary and
electronic evidence collected during the course of investigation. Ld.
Spl. PP further submits that the aforesaid aspects of the investigation
cannot be effectively carried out merely by subjecting the Applicants to
formal questioning while he remains protected from arrest.
-- 3 of 13 --
4/13
Custodial interrogation is, therefore, stated to be necessary for
an effective and comprehensive investigation into the alleged offence
and for tracing the entire network, flow of funds and other persons
involved in the alleged operation.
The Applicants joined the investigation pursuant to the interim
protection granted by the Hon'ble Court; however, according to the
Investigating Agency, they did not cooperate with the investigation. It is
alleged that, despite being confronted with the tenancy documents,
payment records, CDR analysis and other material collected during
investigation, the Applicants denied their involvement and failed to
provide satisfactory explanations regarding the purpose for which the
premises was taken on rent, the nature of activities being conducted
there, the persons employed at the call centre, the source of the mobile-
number data allegedly used for targeting victims, the mule bank
accounts used for receiving the cheated amounts and the disposal of the
amounts so received.
The seized mobile phones and other electronic devices are
being sent for forensic examination. A chargesheet has already been
filed against accused Tushal, Rohit, Logesh and S. Vijayvelpandian,
while a supplementary chargesheet is proposed to be filed upon
completion of further investigation and receipt of the forensic
examination report and certified electronic records.
It is further submitted by the prosecution that, if anticipatory
bail is granted at this stage, there is a possibility that the Applicants may
conceal or destroy electronic evidence, influence witnesses, contact
-- 4 of 13 --
5/13
other associates or coordinate their version with persons whose roles
are yet to be ascertained, thereby prejudicing the ongoing investigation.
It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the
Applicants is required for effecting recoveries, tracing the wider
network and ascertaining the proceeds of the alleged crime.
4. Arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the applicant and
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State have been heard. Case
record has been perused.
5. The Gist of the allegations is that the present case was
registered pursuant to an analysis of complaints received on the
National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and the corresponding
money trails available through the SAMANVAYA Portal of the
Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). During the course of analysis of the
available data, it was found that amounts of 8,377/-, 5,800/- and	₹ ₹
17,800/-, allegedly cheated from three separate complainants in	₹
different NCRP complaints, had been credited into Canara Bank
Account No. 110302584044. It is alleged that the complainants were
induced to make payments on false pretexts, including processing
charges, file charges, membership charges, insurance charges and other
purported formalities for obtaining Mudra loans. The complaints were
stated to be similar in nature. The amounts allegedly received in the
aforesaid bank account were subsequently withdrawn through HDFC
Bank ATM ID CHDLH035, situated at Naraina Industrial Area, New
Delhi. The said bank account was found to be maintained in the name of
accused Tushal S/o Bhagchand. It is further alleged that accused Tushal
-- 5 of 13 --
6/13
had provided his bank account and ATM card for receiving and
withdrawing the proceeds of cyber fraud in exchange for commission.
6. During the course of investigation, NCRP Complaint No.
22905260046028, lodged by Srinivasan K. S/o Kaloyamoorthy, R/o
Ariyalur, Tamil Nadu, was examined. The complainant stated that on
14.05.2026, after seeing an advertisement for a personal loan on
Facebook, he contacted the number mentioned therein. He was
allegedly assured of a loan of 1,00,000/- and was induced to pay	₹
8,377/- towards processing charges, agreement charges and other	₹
purported formalities. However, neither was the loan disbursed nor was
the amount refunded. The complainant also provided relevant
screenshots and documents, including a purported loan approval letter,
which were taken on record. His statement under Section 180 BNSS
was recorded, wherein he reiterated the allegations of cheating.
During further investigation, the chain relating to the
procurement and use of the mule bank account was traced from accused
Tushal to accused Rohit and thereafter to accused Logesh. All the
aforesaid accused persons were served notices under Section 35(3)
BNSS, pursuant to which they joined the investigation. Accused
Logesh allegedly disclosed the existence of an illegal call centre being
operated from D-27, Second Floor, New Ranjit Nagar Commercial
Complex, New Delhi, where persons residing in Tamil Nadu were
allegedly contacted in the Tamil language and induced to deposit money
on the pretext of obtaining Mudra loans. At the instance and
identification of accused Logesh, a raid was conducted at the said
premises, where accused S. Vijayvelpandian was found present.
-- 6 of 13 --
7/13
During inspection of the premises, seven mobile phones, three
computer systems comprising CPUs, monitors, keyboards and mouse
devices, one router, four stamps, a copy of the rent agreement and other
material allegedly connected with the operation of the call centre were
recovered and seized in accordance with law.
Upon scrutiny of the mobile phones recovered from the call-
centre premises, WhatsApp conversations, purported Pradhan Mantri
Mudra Yojana and Mudra Financial Services loan-approval letters,
repayment schedules, KYC documents, bank-account details and
payment receipts were allegedly found. The chats revealed, as per the
prosecution, that prospective victims were asked to provide their
Aadhaar Cards, PAN Cards, bank passbooks and photographs, after
which purported loan-approval documents were shared with them and
payments were demanded under different pretexts. Canara Bank
Account No. 110302584044, allegedly belonging to accused Tushal,
was repeatedly shared through the recovered devices for receiving
payments from prospective victims. According to the prosecution, the
material recovered from the premises corresponds with the modus
operandi disclosed in the NCRP complaints forming the basis of the
present case.
During interrogation, accused Logesh allegedly disclosed that
applicant Nagaraja was his school acquaintance and that applicants
applicant Nagaraja and co-accused Vijay Raj were operating the
purported fake-loan call centre. It is further alleged that applicant
Nagaraja informed Logesh that fresh bank accounts were required for
receiving money from prospective victims, as the accounts previously
-- 7 of 13 --
8/13
used by them had allegedly been blocked following cybercrime
complaints.
It is alleged that applicant Nagaraja offered commission to
Logesh for arranging such accounts, pursuant to which Logesh
contacted accused Rohit, who thereafter procured bank accounts
through accused Tushal. The details of the accounts were allegedly
supplied through the aforesaid chain for use in the purported fake-loan
operation. It is further alleged that, after receipt of the cheated amounts,
the money was withdrawn in cash and, after deduction of commission
by the account holders and intermediaries, the remaining amount was
passed on to the persons operating the alleged fraudulent setup.
Accused Tushal, Rohit, Logesh and S. Vijayvelpandian were arrested in
the present case on 27.07.2026.
The alleged role of the Applicants further surfaced during the
interrogation of accused S. Vijayvelpandian, who was apprehended
from the call-centre premises. He allegedly disclosed that he was
engaged in making calls to persons residing in Tamil Nadu and falsely
representing that Mudra loans could be arranged for them. He further
allegedly disclosed that applicant Nagaraja and co-accused Vijay Raj
were working from and operating the said premises and were among the
persons owning and controlling the call-centre setup. He was allegedly
being paid a monthly amount along with commission for making the
purported fraudulent calls.
The presence of accused S. Vijayvelpandian at the call-centre
premises, coupled with the recovery of computers, mobile phones,
purported fabricated loan documents, KYC documents and payment
-- 8 of 13 --
9/13
details, is relied upon by the prosecution as corroborative material
regarding the existence and functioning of the alleged fraudulent call
centre.
Furthermore, during investigation, the owner of the call-centre
premises, namely Kulwinder Singh Anand, was examined and his
statement under Section 180 BNSS was recorded. He stated that in
April 2026, applicant Nagaraja had approached him for taking premises
bearing No. D-27, Second Floor, New Ranjit Nagar Commercial
Complex, New Delhi, on rent. Applicant Nagaraja allegedly informed
him that he had learnt about the availability of the premises through the
previous tenant, accused Logesh.
Accused Logesh also allegedly contacted the owner and
confirmed that applicant Nagaraja was known to him. Thereafter, a rent
agreement was executed and the initial rent was paid from the account
of co-accused Vijay Raj. The subsequent monthly rent was allegedly
paid in cash by applicant Nagaraja and co-accused Vijay Raj.
The property owner also produced the rent agreement, tenant-
police-verification documents, identity documents of both the
Applicants and screenshots relating to payment of rent, which were
taken on record during investigation.
During the course of further investigation, analysis of CDR and
CAF records has allegedly provided electronic corroboration regarding
the association of the Applicants with persons working at the call
centre. Mobile No. 8447840159, which is registered in the name of co-
accused Vijay Raj and was allegedly being used by applicant Nagaraja,
reflected 371 calls with the mobile number used by accused S.
-- 9 of 13 --
10/13
Vijayvelpandian. Mobile No. 9958305705, allegedly used by co-
accused Vijay Raj, reflected 124 calls with accused S. Vijayvelpandian.
The said mobile number of co-accused Vijay Raj also reflected
communication with accused Logesh, who allegedly arranged and
supplied the mule bank accounts used for receiving the cheated
amounts.
Thus, the case against the applicant at this stage is not founded
merely upon a bare or unexplained allegation, but upon a digital trail
and a trail disclosed by co-accused persons which requires further
investigation and verification.
7. The explanation offered on behalf of the applicant that custodial
interrogation is unnecessary cannot, at this stage, be accepted as a
ground for granting anticipatory bail. The investigation is still at a
nascent stage and the Investigating Officer is required to ascertain the
precise role of the applicant for tracing the wider network and proceeds
of crime.
8. The submission that the applicant did not personally receive the
alleged amount or that no direct money trail has presently been
established in his bank account cannot, by itself, exonerate him at the
stage of investigation. The alleged modus operandi involves
inducement to innocent people to pay the money on the pretext of
processing charges, filing charges etc. for obtaining mudra loan and
therefore, the absence of a direct credit of the disputed amount into the
applicant's bank account is not sufficient to discard the other
incriminating circumstances emerging during investigation.
-- 10 of 13 --
11/13
9. At the stage of consideration of an application for anticipatory
bail, this Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or conclusively
determine the applicant's guilt or innocence. The Court is required to
consider the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected
during investigation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the
requirement of his participation in investigation and the possibility of
the investigation being hampered if protection from arrest is granted.
10. In the present case, there is specific material connecting the
applicant with the crime that the applicant has taken the premises on
rent which was used to run a fake call centre. This circumstance,
coupled with the associated digital identifiers and the applicant's failure
to cooperate during investigation, makes his custodial interrogation a
matter which cannot be ruled out at this stage.
11. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
Applicant, namely, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI; Sanjay Chandra v.
CBI; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar; Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v. State of
Gujarat; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi); Shri P.
Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation; Ravjeet Singh v. CBI;
and Furkhan @ Kabir Deshmukh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., are
distinguishable on facts and do not advance the case of the Applicant in
the facts and circumstances of the present matter. The said judgments
lay down general principles governing arrest, custodial interrogation,
personal liberty and grant of bail/anticipatory bail, but the applicability
of such principles depends upon the factual matrix of each case. In the
present case, the prosecution has placed on record specific material
connecting the Applicant with the alleged call-centre premises and its
-- 11 of 13 --
12/13
activities, including the tenancy documents, payment of rent from the
account of the Applicant, CDR/CAF analysis showing communication
with the persons allegedly working at the call centre, statements of the
co-accused, and other material collected during investigation. Further,
the seized electronic devices are yet to undergo forensic examination
and investigation relating to the source of victim data, the mule bank
accounts, flow and ultimate destination of the alleged proceeds of crime
and the role of other associates is still continuing. Thus, the factual
circumstances obtaining in the judgments relied upon by the Applicant
are materially different from those obtaining in the present case.
Consequently, while there can be no quarrel with the legal principles
enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, the same do not, on the facts
presently before this Court, entitle the Applicant to the extraordinary
relief of anticipatory bail. Moreover, in the present case, IO has
repeatedly and specifically stated that custodial interrogation of the
accused/applicant is required and accused/applicant himself cannot
decide whether his custodial interrogation is required or not.
12. In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material
collected so far, the specific role attributed to the accused requiring
further investigation and the possibility that custodial interrogation may
be necessary for a fair and effective investigation, this Court is not
inclined to extend the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory
bail to the applicant.
13. Consequently, the present application for anticipatory bail of
applicant/ accused Nagaraja s/o Sh. Ayyadurai is dismissed.
-- 12 of 13 --
13/13
The observations made herein are confined to the adjudication
of the present application and shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case at the stage of trial. Application stands
disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be given dasti as prayed for.
(Prabh Deep Kaur)
ASJ (POCSO -06)/PHC/NDD
22.09.2026
-- 13 of 13 --