[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Abdullah Arif Ansari vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9559/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9559
of 2026
==========================================================
ABDULLAH ARIF ANSARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR IMRANALI H SAIYED(12897) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 24/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), the applicant
has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection
with the FIR No. 11200052260002 of 2026, registered with Cyber
Crime Police Station, Valsad for the offences punishable under
Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the
Information Technology Act, 2008.
3. The case of the prosecution at the nutshell is that one Shahid
Shamshadkhan had open his account in SBI Bank wherein the
amount of cyber crime was deposited at the instance of present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9559/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
applicant, and thus, has committed cyber fraud of Rs.7,90,000/-,
pursuance to which the FIR has been lodged.
3.1. The applicant had preferred an anticipatory bail application
before the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad, vide Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.127 of 2026, which came to be
rejected vide order dated 07.03.2026, hence, the present
application.
4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Mrudul M. Barot for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan
Dave for the respondent - State.
5. The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that
there is delay of approximately 11 months in lodging of the FIR
and there is no proper explanation of delay in the FIR. He would
further submit that the only evidence against the present applicant
is based on the statement of the co-accused, and therefore, relying
only on the statement of the co-accused no action against the
present applicant can be taken.
5.1. The learned advocate would further submit that the present
applicant is innocent person and he has not played any role as
alleged in the FIR. He would also submit that even from the bare
reading of the complainant, no offence as alleged by the
complainant is made out, and therefore, continuation of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9559/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence,
argued to allow the present applicant.
6. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.
Chintan Dave, appearing on behalf of the respondent - State
would oppose to grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature
and gravity of the offence and requests not to entertain this
application. He would further submit that from the statement of
the bank account holder - Sahid Samsadkhan and also from the
statement of accused Abdula Aarif Ansari, the complicity of the
present applicant is surfaced on record during the investigation.
6.1. Learned APP would further submit that there are seven
complaints of cyber fraud lodged against the present applicant
with regard to the account maintained with A.U. Small Finance
Bank bearing account No.2301248850183187, and that various
complaints are also lodged in the bank account with Ujjivan Small
Finance Bank in the name of applicant's sister Mariyam Aarif
Ansari bearing account No.21311240049525, and over and above,
the applicant has also taken commission of Rs.10,000/- on each
account, which were open with the instance of Yunus Abdul Majid
Shaikh for the purpose of depositing the cyber fraud amount.
6.2. Learned APP would also submit that as per the statement of
Section 183 of the BNSS, Adil Aarif Khan who has account with
the Bank of Baroda bearing account No.52870100001292, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9559/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
present applicant has used the said account for depositing the
amount received through cyber fraud.
6.3. He would further submit that the so-called wife of the
present applicant, Farhan Shaihk who has bank account with the
UCO Bank bearing account No.06170110067468 is also used for the
purpose of siphoning of the amount received through cyber fraud.
6.4. Learned APP would also submit that notice under Section
35(3) is also issued by the Cyber Police Station at Gurugram, dated
31.10.2025 in an investigation of FIR No.104 dated 17.04.2024,
registered at Cyber Police Station at Gurugram, and thus, argued
that the applicant is having criminal antecedents and is involved
in number of cases of cyber fraud.
6.5. It is further submit by the learned APP that the applicant
being a tech savvy person, he is constantly changing his mobile
number and L.O.C. has also been issued, and therefore, no
indulgence is required.
6.6. Learned APP would relied on the order dated 23.04.2026
passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application (for
Anticipatory Bail) No.9508 of 2026.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is
incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9559/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid
down in plethora of decisions of the Apex Court on the point. It is
well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the
nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the
applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of
any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee
from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested. Though at the stage of bail an elaborate examination of
evidence and detailed reasons touching the merits of the case,
which may prejudice the case of accused, should be avoided.
7.1 Before adverting to the case on hand, it would be apt to refer
to the observations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
in the above-referred decision relied upon by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, paragraph 7 of which, reads as
under:
"7. It is befitting to mention here that while adjudicating
the bail pleas, particularly in cases concerning cybercrimes
and online fraud, necessitates a meticulous evaluation of
several pivotal factors. Paramount among these is the
inherent gravity and seriousness of the offense, coupled with
its potential societal ramifications. The proliferation of
online frauds and cybercrimes poses a significant threat, as
it systematically erodes public confidence in digital
financial transaction platforms. Such erosion runs counter
to the aspirations of an advanced and digitally empowered
"Digital Bharat" and thus warrants a heightened degree of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9559/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
judicial circumspection. These offenses are characterized by
their capacity to aggrieve a multitude of victims
simultaneously, often with a single act of commission. The
deleterious consequences of cybercrimes transcend
individual boundaries, imperiling numerous unsuspecting
citizens. The gravity of such transgressions cannot,
therefore, be understated. They not only jeopardize the
financial security and trust reposed by individuals in
financial payment gateways and platforms but also
inherently expose the broader populace to analogous threats.
Indeed, cybercrime in our nation operates akin to a silent
virus --insidious, disruptive, and exacting a toll on society
that extends far beyond mere pecuniary loss, encompassing
the bedrock of trust, security, and national progress. Given
the inherent nature and profound gravity of such offenses,
and their wide-ranging cascading effects on both society and
financial institutions, this Court finds itself disinclined to
grant the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed for. To do
otherwise would be to turn a Nelson's eye to the profound
and far-reaching detrimental impact of these digital
depredations. At this stage, there is no material on record to
hold that prima facie case is not made out against the
petitioner. The material which has come on record and
preliminary investigation, appear to be established a
reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not
appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it
would necessarily cause impediment in effective
investigation."
(emphasis supplied)
7.2 Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid, if the case on hand is
adverted to, following salient aspects are required to be
considered:
a) though the applicant is not named in the FIR, however,
in such crimes, more particularly, cyber crimes, the identity
of the accused can be revealed generally after deep
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9559/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
investigation only inasmuch as, such are though economic
offences, but they are technical too involving multiple layers
of transactions;
b) as per the case of the prosecution, role of the applicant
herein is to the effect that present applicant had used bank
account of various persons to commit cyber fraud and to
deposit cyber fraud amount;
c) investigation is still going on and there are all chances
of more disclosure;
d) the applicant has antecedents related to cyber crime.
Thus, it prima facie appears that the applicant herein
habitually indulges into such an illegal activity;
e) the economic cyber offences are not ordinary crimes
and they belong to a category of their own because they
damage national interests, shatter public trust and threaten
the stability of our financial systems and thus, they must be
viewed through a much stricter legal lens;
f) necessity of custodial interrogation is also required to
be kept in mind. To fully investigate a complex financial
fraud, the investigating agency must be allowed to follow
the money trail. This often requires continuous and detailed
questioning while the accused is in custody. To filter out the
financial layers, custodial interrogation is not just a choice
but it is an essential tool for the investigating agency to
uncover hidden evidence that would otherwise remain
buried. When there is a strong initial evidence such as
statements of witnesses as in the instant case, the Court's
priority must be the integrity of the investigation. While
personal liberty is important, it cannot be used a shield to
block the police from uncovering the truth in a serious
economic offence;
g) the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9559/2026 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2026
undefined
Bansal v. State of Punjab, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 493 in
para 23, has observed as under:
"23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the
sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The
presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the
court should keep in mind while considering the plea for
anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the
accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to
the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public
justice."
(emphasis supplied)
7.3 Upon perusing the investigation papers, this Court is not in
agreement with the submission of the learned advocate for the
applicant that custody of the applicant is not required. Further this
Court cannot be insensitive to the fact that various persons are in
dark and in dilemma as to when their amount would be returned.
Thus, in said facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact
that the investigation is in a crucial stage and considering the fact
that there are all chances of perilling the investigation and the
prosecution case as well as interest of the victims if anticipatory
bail is granted to the applicant. Accordingly, in the considered
opinion of the Court, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in
favour of the applicant.
8. In view of the same, the application is hereby rejected. Rule
is discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
