Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 11 BAIL MATTERS / 338/2026 Imran Vs. State 126/2026 (Cyber
Police Station)
08.08.2026
Present: Sh. Ashish Singh, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Ashwani Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Sh. Rohit Kalra, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
IO/ASI Manoj Kumar in person.
Reply to the bail application filed by the IO. Copy
supplied.
Arguments heard on behalf of all the parties.
Put up for order at 03:00 PM.
(Tanya Bamniyal)
CJM/North-East/KKD Courts/Delhi
08.08.2026
At 03:00 PM
Present: Sh. Ashish Singh, Ld. APP for the State.
None for accused/applicant.
1. By way of the present order, this Court shall dispose
of the regular bail application moved on behalf of accused Imran,
who was arrested on 16.07.2026 in the present case.
2. Briefly stated, the present e-FIR was registered on the
complaint of Kanhaiya Lal Tripathi, who alleged that he had fallen
victim to a cyber-sextortion racket. As per the prosecution, on
06.05.2026, the complainant received a WhatsApp video call from
an unknown woman who persuaded him to remove his clothes
during the video call. Thereafter, the complainant was allegedly
threatened with circulation of the objectionable video on social
media and was induced/coerced to make payments on different
occasions by persons impersonating police officers, social-media
Contd...1/8
-- 1 of 8 --
-2-
officials and other government authorities.
3. Ld. Counsel for the accused has sought bail primarily
on the ground that the accused has been falsely implicated and has
no connection with co-accused Kunal or with the alleged
beneficiary bank account. It is argued that the accused was neither
the account holder nor the person who induced or threatened the
complainant. It is submitted that one Arshad, who is the cousin
brother of the accused, had merely asked the accused to withdraw
certain money from the ATM and, acting upon the request of his
cousin, the accused withdrew the amount without having any
knowledge regarding its source or that it constituted proceeds of
any cyber fraud. It is further submitted that merely withdrawing
money from an ATM at the request of a relative cannot, by itself,
establish the accused’s participation in the alleged conspiracy.
4. It is further argued that there is no connection between
accused Imran and co-accused Kunal. Thus, according to the
defence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not
establish that the accused had knowingly participated in the
commission of the alleged offences.
5. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that the FIR reflects
an amount of approximately Rs. 3,58,500/-, whereas in the reply to
the present bail application, the IO has stated that the total cheated
amount was Rs. 5,80,000/-. It is argued that such variation itself
raises doubt regarding the prosecution version and ought to enure
to the benefit of the accused at the stage of consideration of bail.
-- 2 of 8 --
-3-
6. Ld. APP for the State who is assisted by the IO has
opposed the application. It is submitted that there is direct
documentary and electronic material connecting the accused with
the proceeds of the alleged offence. During investigation, an
amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- forming part of the cheated amount was
found credited into Punjab National Bank Account No.
0765100100024608, maintained in the name of co-accused Kunal.
The prosecution alleges that the present accused was involved in
operating/utilising the said account for withdrawal of the proceeds
of crime.
7. It is specifically pointed out that on 11.05.2026, three
successive cash withdrawals were made from ATM ID B1076510,
Punjab National Bank, NH Park, Faridabad, namely, Rs. 20,000/-
at 04:06:34 PM, Rs. 20,000/- at 04:07:52 PM and Rs. 15,000/- at
04:08:59 PM, aggregating to Rs. 55,000/-. According to the IO,
CCTV footage obtained from the concerned ATM/bank depicts the
present accused Imran making the said withdrawals. The CCTV
footage is stated to be corroborated by the corresponding ATM
transaction records.
8. As regards the discrepancy concerning the total
cheated amount, the IO has explained that at the initial stage, the
amount of Rs. 3,58,500/- reflected in the FIR represented the
amount transferred directly from the complainant’s own bank
account. However, during investigation, it emerged that the
complainant had also arranged further amounts from his relatives
and other sources and had paid the same pursuant to the threats and
-- 3 of 8 --
-4-
demands allegedly made by the offenders. According to the IO,
these additional payments had been disclosed by the complainant
in his written complaint lodged with the police, and upon
verification of the entire transaction trail, the total amount was
found to be approximately Rs. 5,80,000/-.
9. The IO has further submitted that as many as five
NCRP complaints from different States have surfaced in
connection with the same beneficiary Punjab National Bank
account. It is therefore contended that the bank account was not
involved in an isolated transaction and the investigation is being
conducted to ascertain the complete money trail and identify other
persons involved in the alleged cyber-fraud network.
Analysis And Findings:
10. I have heard the submissions advanced by both sides
and have perused the material placed before the Court. At the stage
of consideration of bail, the Court is not required to conduct a
meticulous examination of the evidence or return any conclusive
finding regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. At the same
time, the nature and gravity of the accusations, the material prima
facie connecting the accused with the offence, the stage of
investigation and the possibility of the accused interfering with the
investigation are relevant considerations.
11. In the present case, the allegation against the accused
cannot, at this stage, be treated merely as an allegation founded
upon disclosure statements or upon his association with another
-- 4 of 8 --
-5-
accused. The prosecution has placed reliance upon an objectively
verifiable trail comprising the bank transaction records, ATM
transaction logs and CCTV footage. The prosecution case is that
money allegedly obtained from the complainant was credited into
the beneficiary account and shortly thereafter a part thereof was
withdrawn in cash by the present accused. The CCTV footage is
stated to identify the accused as the person actually making the
withdrawals.
12. Therefore, there is, prima facie, a direct link between
the present accused and the withdrawal of a portion of the alleged
cheated amount. Whether the accused knew the precise source of
the money and whether he was a member of the larger conspiracy
are matters which would necessarily require investigation and,
ultimately, appreciation of evidence. However, for the limited
purpose of the present bail application, the existence of the
aforesaid documentary and electronic trail cannot be ignored.
13. The defence that the accused had withdrawn the
money merely at the request of his cousin Arshad, without knowing
its source, also does not persuade this Court to grant bail at the
present stage. The defence itself, in fact, does not dispute the
physical act of withdrawal but seeks to explain the circumstances
in which the withdrawal was made. The acceptability of such
explanation would have to be tested against the material collected
during investigation.
14. At this stage, therefore, the defence version that the
-- 5 of 8 --
-6-
accused was merely an innocent intermediary cannot be accepted at
its face value so as to efface the prima facie electronic and
documentary material against him. This observation is, however,
confined exclusively to the consideration of the present bail
application and shall not be construed as an expression on the
merits of the case.
15. As regards the variation between Rs. 3,58,500/- and
Rs. 5,80,000/-, the explanation furnished by the IO cannot, at this
stage, be termed inherently improbable. The IO has clarified that
Rs. 3,58,500/- represented the amount initially reported/transferred
from the complainant’s own account, whereas the remaining
payments were made after the complainant arranged money from
relatives and other sources, which transactions were disclosed in
his written complaint to the police. Whether every component of
the amount of Rs. 5,80,000/- is ultimately established by
documentary evidence is a matter for investigation and evidence.
The aforesaid variation, by itself, does not dilute the specific
material presently relied upon against the accused, particularly
when the prosecution has identified the beneficiary account, the
relevant ATM transactions and the CCTV footage concerning the
withdrawal attributed to him.
16. Another circumstance which assumes significance at
the present stage is the submission of the IO that five NCRP
complaints originating from different States are linked with the
same beneficiary bank account. If borne out from the records, this
circumstance prima facie indicates that the account in question may
-- 6 of 8 --
-7-
have been used for receiving proceeds from more than one cyber-
fraud transaction. The investigation concerning the complete
money trail, role of the persons providing/operating the beneficiary
account, identification of other participants and recovery of the
remaining proceeds is stated to be continuing.
17. Cyber fraud and sextortion offences ordinarily involve
multiple actors performing different functions, including contacting
victims, impersonating officials, arranging beneficiary accounts,
transferring funds and withdrawing or dissipating the proceeds.
Therefore, merely because the present accused is not alleged to
have personally made the initial video call or directly threatened
the complainant would not, at this preliminary stage, be sufficient
to disregard the specific allegation that he participated in
withdrawal of the alleged proceeds. His precise knowledge,
intention and degree of participation would have to be determined
on the basis of the investigation and evidence collected.
18. The Court is conscious that the accused is stated to
have no previous criminal involvement as per the presently
available record and that he has remained in custody since
16.07.2026. These are undoubtedly considerations in his favour.
However, they have to be balanced against the specific electronic
and documentary material attributed to him and the present stage of
investigation.
19. In view of the fact that the investigation regarding the
complete money trail and the identity and role of other persons is
-- 7 of 8 --
-8-
still in progress; the beneficiary account is stated to be linked with
multiple NCRP complaints; and the prosecution has placed prima
facie material in the nature of bank records, ATM transaction logs
and CCTV footage specifically connecting the accused with
withdrawal of a part of the alleged cheated amount, this Court does
not consider it appropriate to release the accused on bail at this
stage. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances, the nature of allegations, the prima facie material
available against the accused and the stage of investigation, the bail
application moved on behalf of accused Imran is dismissed.
Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an
expression on merits of the case.
Copy of this order be given
dasti to Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant and IO, as prayed for.
(Tanya Bamniyal)
CJM/North-East/KKD Courts/Delhi
08.08.2026
-- 8 of 8 --