[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2026:KHC:15475
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:15475
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
NC: 2026:KHC:15475
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
