Offering a phone in a sealed cover was not enough: a Delhi court has refused anticipatory bail in cyber fraud probe proceedings to a woman whose bank account allegedly surfaced as a mule account.
New Delhi: A woman who offered to hand over her mobile phone in a sealed cover for limited forensic examination has failed to secure anticipatory bail in cyber fraud probe proceedings before the Patiala House Court. Dismissing the application filed by Namita Gupta, the Court observed that she had not joined the investigation despite a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that her offer did not address all the investigative requirements [State of Delhi v. Namita Gupta].
The order of November 3, 2026 was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Prabh Deep Kaur, sitting as Bail Roster Judge at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, on an application under Section 482 BNSS.
Why the sealed-cover offer fell short
The Court noted that even if the applicant’s grievance about the first visit were treated as reasonable, there was no explanation for her not joining the investigation after the second notice of October 29. It accepted as “probable and justified” the IO’s explanation that in cyber fraud cases devices often cannot be left with an accused for long, since data may be erased and others in the chain alerted.
“The Applicant’s willingness to submit her mobile phone for limited forensic examination, subject to conditions, does not sufficiently address all the investigative requirements highlighted by the Investigating Officer.”
The Court said it had considered that the applicant is a woman and sole caregiver of her elderly father, but held that this humanitarian factor had to be balanced against the nature of the allegations and the needs of an effective investigation:
“The settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception does not confer an absolute right to anticipatory bail, and the relief has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The FIR and the prosecution’s account
FIR No. 135 of 2026 was registered at Police Station Cyber, South West District, under Sections 112(2), 318(4), 317(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, after a preliminary enquiry on October 24, 2026. According to the prosecution, analysis of mule account data on the NCRP/I4C portal flagged a Union Bank of India account in the applicant’s name, allegedly linked to two complaints, one of trading fraud and one of digital arrest. The prosecution alleges the account worked as a “Layer-3” account through which cheated money was withdrawn by cheques.
The prosecution alleges that when police officials visited her residence on October 24, 2026, she did not open the gate, declined to disclose the source of the money or show her phone, refused to receive notice and called the 112 helpline. A notice under Section 35(3) BNSS dated October 29, 2026 was allegedly refused and was then affixed at her house.
What the applicant told the Court
Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Jayant Tewathia argued that she was innocent and falsely implicated, that she is not part of any cyber fraud syndicate, and that her assertion of legal rights on October 24 had been misconstrued. He submitted that plain-clothes police remained at her house for about eight hours and tried to seize her device without a warrant, which she said amounted to harassment, and that her calls to the 112 and 1930 helplines supported her version.
It was argued that the case rests on bank and NCRP records already preserved by third parties, that the applicant was willing to furnish bank statements and submit her phone in a sealed cover for targeted forensic examination with safeguards for her private data, and that mere use of her account without proof of knowledge does not establish culpability. Counsel also pointed out that she is a woman and the sole caregiver of her 75-year-old bedridden father, and relied on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand for the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
The State’s opposition
Additional Public Prosecutor Santosh Kumar opposed the plea on the basis of the Investigating Officer’s reply, submitting that custodial interrogation was needed to recover her mobile phone, bank kit, cheque books and ATM card, to trace the money trail and to confront her with the complainants and bank statements. The State alleged she had been non-cooperative and could destroy evidence or shield accomplices if protected.
The outcome
Accepting the IO’s plea that custodial interrogation was required to recover the phone, bank kit, cheque book and ATM card and to trace the money trail, the Court declined to extend “the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail” at this stage and dismissed the application. It clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and were not an expression of opinion on the merits.
The allegations against the applicant are untested, she denies them, the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and she is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the order matters
The order shows how trial courts are weighing anticipatory bail in mule-account cases, where the account holder is often at the last link of a fraud chain. Non-cooperation with a Section 35(3) BNSS notice weighed heavily: once an accused does not appear despite notice, a court is less likely to accept that custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
It also signals that conditional offers, such as handing over a device in a sealed cover for limited examination, may not satisfy a court where the investigation needs the device, banking instruments and confrontation with records. Personal circumstances such as caregiving duties remain relevant, but are balanced against the nature of the allegations rather than treated as decisive.
Case Title: State of Delhi v. Namita Gupta [Bail Matters No. 2716 of 2026, FIR No. 135 of 2026, PS Cyber South West]
Court: Additional Sessions Judge Prabh Deep Kaur (Bail Roster Judge), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
For the State: Santosh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Applicant: Advocate Jayant Tewathia
