“Internet wolves, operating in packs, are increasingly on the prowl in cyberspace, acting in tandem and exploiting technology to defraud unsuspecting individuals,” the Delhi High Court has observed while highlighting the growing instances of organised cybercrime facilitated by the anonymity of the internet.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed that while the internet has brought considerable comfort, convenience and efficiency into everyday life, it has also provided fertile ground for organised cybercrime.

“Anonymity in cyberspace has given rise to several situations, both positive and negative. It is, after all, human nature to use and misuse any instrument or authority placed at one's disposal,” the Court observed.

The observations were made while denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of being the mastermind of an organised syndicate that allegedly defrauded a businessman of Rs. 1 crore by promising to exchange the amount for Rs. 1.20 crore in cash, but handing over suitcases containing counterfeit currency notes.

The Court noted that the ever-increasing instances of cyber fraud, phishing, digital impersonation and other organised financial crimes were a stark reminder of the darker side of the technological revolution.

The applicant, Naseem Sheikh, was accused of coordinating the co-accused, assigning them specific roles and supervising the fraudulent transactions.

The case arose from an FIR registered on June 05, 2025, at the Special Cell's Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit, Delhi, on the complaint of one Akash Verma.

According to the prosecution, on June 04, 2025, the complainant was induced to transfer Rs. 1 crore through Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) from his Axis Bank account to a Bank of Baroda account held in the name of Rashtriya Manav Party, Parliament Branch, on the assurance that he would receive Ra. 1.20 crore in cash.

However, the red suitcase handed over to him at Tughlakabad Extension allegedly contained counterfeit currency notes bearing the markings “Full of Fun” and “Churan Label”, along with books.

During the investigation, several accused persons were apprehended. The applicant was allegedly identified as the mastermind in the disclosure statements of co-accused persons.

The prosecution relied upon WhatsApp conversations, call detail records, witness statements and the banking trail to establish his alleged involvement.

It was further alleged that co-accused Tara Maheshwari collected approximately Rs. 93 lakh and subsequently handed over the amount to the applicant after retaining her share. The chargesheet was filed on September 16, 2025, while Ra. 92,56,500 remained unrecovered.

Before the Court, the applicant's counsel argued that he was neither named in the original complaint nor in the FIR and that his alleged involvement was primarily based on the disclosure statements of co-accused persons.

It was also submitted that the other accused had already been granted bail, that the applicant was willing to join and cooperate with the investigation, and that there was no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence.

Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the applicant was one of the principal conspirators and the ultimate beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions.

The prosecution further pointed out that despite being served a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), requiring him to join the investigation on August 27, the applicant had failed to do so.

It was argued that his custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the unrecovered amount, ascertain the complete modus operandi and identify the remaining members of the alleged syndicate.

Considering the submissions, Justice Yadav observed that although the applicant was not named in the initial complaint, the investigation had allegedly unearthed material beyond the disclosure statements of co-accused persons, including electronic evidence and the money trail, which prima facie indicated his involvement in the conspiracy.

The Court observed that the evidentiary value of such material was a matter to be examined during trial and could not be conclusively determined at the anticipatory bail stage.

It further noted that the applicant's subsequent willingness to cooperate with the investigation did not adequately address the apprehensions of the investigating agency, particularly when a substantial amount remained untraced and the investigation into the financial trail and the role of other associates was continuing.

Rejecting the argument based on parity, the Court held that the bail granted to co-accused persons could not automatically entitle the applicant to similar relief, particularly when the role attributed to him was distinct and substantially more serious.

The Court also took note of the prosecution's submission that the applicant was allegedly involved in another case involving a similar modus operandi.

“The nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the substantial amount yet to be recovered and his failure to join the investigation,” cumulatively, did not warrant the grant of extraordinary protection under Section 482 of the BNSS, the Court held.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea.