The Calcutta High Court has refused anticipatory bail to an accused in a large cyber fraud case involving alleged fake investment schemes, digital arrest scams and the layering of proceeds through mule accounts and cryptocurrency wallets, holding that the petitioner stood on a different footing from co-accused who had earlier obtained similar relief.
Court Finds Petitioner Was a Prime Perpetrator
Justice Jay Sengupta observed that the petitioner could not seek parity with members of the Ruia family, who had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench, because the allegations against him were qualitatively different. The court held that the accused was not merely a beneficiary but was alleged to be a prime perpetrator who layered proceeds of crime through mule accounts and cryptocurrency wallets.
Rejecting the plea, the court said it was evident that the petitioner was allegedly not only the ultimate beneficiary of the fraud but, unlike certain other co-accused, was also a prime perpetrator of the offence. The court further noted that he was practically caught red-handed while carrying out the alleged fraud and that tainted money had been transmitted even to other countries and across different channels, including crypto wallets.
FCRF Academy Launches Premier Anti-Money Laundering Certification Program
Large Scale Allegations and Money Trail
The petitioner had sought anticipatory bail in connection with Barrackpore Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 57 of 2025, registered under provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to the prosecution, funds from multiple cyber fraud victims were first routed into certain SBI accounts and then siphoned into accounts of Hughli Machineries Private Limited.
Investigators allegedly found 11 current accounts linked to 544 complaints involving around ₹97 crore. The wider NCRP data, as cited in the screenshots, reflected 1,379 complaints involving losses of about ₹315 crore. The State alleged that the racket had been functioning since 2024 or earlier and had cheated more than 1,000 victims through fake investment schemes, digital arrest frauds and similar offences.
Court Notes Crypto Transfers and Flight Risk
The prosecution further contended that the petitioner accessed company bank accounts through internet banking on his mobile phone, transferred funds to multiple shell entities and personal accounts, and later converted part of the proceeds into cryptocurrency routed to wallets in jurisdictions such as Saudi Arabia and Dubai in an effort to evade detection. It was also alleged that the IP address used for siphoning funds was traced to the petitioner’s mobile number.
The High Court accepted the State’s argument that the discovery of a wider conspiracy after an earlier FIR involving a single victim could justify registration of a subsequent FIR to uncover the full scale of the alleged fraud. The court also took note of what it described as the enormous scale of the allegations, the layering of proceeds across accounts, the use of cryptocurrency and overseas transfers, the apprehension of flight risk, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and existing custody in another case. Holding that the matter was not fit for pre-arrest protection, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application and also rejected a subsequent prayer for stay of the order.
About the author – Rehan Khan is a law student and legal journalist with a keen interest in cybercrime, digital fraud, and emerging technology laws. He writes on the intersection of law, cybersecurity, and online safety, focusing on developments that impact individuals and institutions in India.
