Delay in reporting unaccounted money lands man in trouble as SC refuses protection from arrest

Reporting an unexplained deposit in a bank account months after it first appeared can put account holders in serious legal trouble — this was made clear by the Supreme Court on Monday when it dismissed a man’s petition for anticipatory bail in a cyber fraud case.

The petitioner, a resident of Shivnagar in Bihar’s Nawada, was summoned by Delhi Police in connection with a cyber fraud conspiracy.

He alleged his bank account was misused by his tenant, who hacked it under the pretext of online transfer of a small loan.

Petitioner delayed approaching police by 4 months

During the hearing, a bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and P.B. Varale asked a key question — when the petitioner first noticed the deposit and when he chose to approach the police.

The bench was told the deposit of Rs 20 lakh came into his account in September last year, but it was only in January — nearly four months later — that the petitioner informed the authorities.

The judges held this delay against him and dismissed his bail application.

The court also observed that the deposit was not a solitary transaction. Multiple transactions adding up to over Rs 5 crore flowed into his account in a single day from different sources across the country, and 13 cases were registered in connection with these transactions.

Funds routed through account within hours

Investigations revealed the amount was routed through his account and into at least three other accounts within hours. Delhi’s cyber police registered the FIR under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, following a complaint from a representative of Starcon Infra Projects India Pvt Ltd, alleging fraud.

The petitioner insisted he was not involved in the fraud and was running a subsidised canteen for paramilitary forces with no criminal history. His lawyer argued that the transactions were made without his knowledge and consent.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed these submissions and upheld the view that the delay in notifying authorities raised suspicion and called for further investigation into his role.

(With inputs from ToI)