Karnataka High Court
Sri Anand Mishra vs State By on 16 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15475
CRL.P No. 2943 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2943 OF 2026
(438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI ANAND MISHRA
S/O SANJAY MISHRA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.158 C
DURGESH VIHAR
MINAL RESIDENCE
JK ROAD, HUZUR,
Digitally
signed by GOVINDPURA,
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE BHOPAL,
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI MADHYA PRADESH STATE- 462023
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAIK VENKATRAMAN NAGAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
WHITEFIELD CEN CRIME POLICE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15475
CRL.P No. 2943 of 2026
HC-KAR
WHITEFIELD DIVISION,
BANGALORE CITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP)
CRL.P FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO A) GRANT
AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.446/2025.
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT/WHITEFIELD CEN POLICE,
AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 66C, 66D OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACT, 2000 AND SECTIONS 318(4) AND 319(2) OF BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA. 2023. B) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
POLICE, TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT
OF ARREST IN CRIME NO.446/2025, REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT/WHITEFIELD CEN POLICE, AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
66C AND 66D OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AND
SECTION 318(4) AND 319(2) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA,
2023 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15475
CRL.P No. 2943 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.446/2025 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Brief facts of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant stating that, on 26.07.2025, he got a text message on WhatsApp from a person, namely, Kavita Yadav Nielson Media India, for a job opportunity. It was instructed that, she could earn Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per day by giving Google ratings. Even though the complainant had no interest, she started sending links for Google reviews, as she had been assured that she would become a permanent employee at Nielsen Media India and took her personal details to create an account on Telegram. After that, she joined the Telegram group where there were 479 members. Later on, they created a trading account in the name of the defacto complainant. Initially, they asked the defacto complainant to deposit less amount. She went with Plan-A and -4- NC: 2026:KHC:15475 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2026 HC-KAR deposited Rs.7,000/-, where they told that her she would get a return of Rs.15,600/-, including 40% commission. Thereafter, several transactions had taken place. She came to know that she had been cheated by the petitioner. Hence, she lodged a complaint. The matter is under investigation.
3. Heard Sri Naik Venkatraman Nagappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Pushpalatha B., learned Addl. SPP for the respondent - State.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has not committed any offence. Initially, a complaint was filed against an unknown person in respect of online financial share trading. During the course of investigation, the respondent - police have frozen the bank account of the petitioner. The allegation made against the petitioner is baseless and false and he is a student of B. Tech. He would abide the conditions if he is enlarged on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:15475 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP and Special Counsel for Cyber Crime vehemently submitted that the averments of the complaint would indicate that the petitioner herein had induced the innocent complainant to deposit the amount promising that, she would get the benefit along with the commission. Accordingly, she had deposited the amount. However, she did not get any benefit or commission and moreover, the account of the petitioner had been frozen by the authority. As per the investigation, cases have been registered against the said account in Kerala, Gujarat, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab. The custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is very much essential. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Making such submissions, learned Addl. SPP prays to reject the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments made in the petition. The complainant lodges a complaint stating that she had been induced by the petitioner and she was given the account number on the promise that, she would get the benefit and also -6- NC: 2026:KHC:15475 CRL.P No. 2943 of 2026 HC-KAR commission. Accordingly, she had deposited a huge amount in the said account. The said account has been frozen on the basis of the complaint given by the complainant. The matter is under investigation. It appears from the record that the said account, over which the present petitioner has rights, is involved in five cases across different States. Considering the said aspect, it is not appropriate to grant him anticipatory bail.
7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The Criminal Petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48