The Bombay High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to an applicant apprehending arrest in a case involving alleged unauthorized Bitcoin transactions from a complainant's crypto wallet. The Court emphasized the delay in FIR registration and the absence of evidence indicating wrongful gain by the applicant. The judgment underscores the need for stringent conditions to ensure cooperation in investigation while balancing the applicant's right against self-incrimination.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The applicant, Vasant Anandrao Idhol, filed an anticipatory bail application before the Bombay High Court, apprehending arrest in Crime No.119 of 2025 registered with the Bandra-Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai. The FIR was lodged under Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Key Facts
- The alleged offence occurred on 13th November, 2024, when an amount of Rs. 9,40,000 was allegedly transferred from the complainant's crypto wallet through Bitcoins without consent.
- The FIR was registered three months later on 27th February, 2025, raising concerns about the delay in reporting the incident.
- The applicant's counsel argued that transferring funds from a crypto wallet requires sharing of passwords or OTP, making the allegations of unauthorized transfer without consent unbelievable.
- The applicant submitted that she is ready to cooperate with the investigation, including providing details of transactions, her mobile phone, and residential address.
- The prosecution contended that the applicant had used the complainant's mobile phone and obtained screenshots, suggesting involvement in the transaction.
Procedural History
- 27th February, 2025: FIR registered at Bandra-Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai (Crime No.119 of 2025).
- 16th July, 2026: Anticipatory bail application (ABA No.1850 of 2026) filed before the Bombay High Court.
- 16th July, 2026: Court grants anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- The applicant denied any wrongful gain from the alleged transaction.
- Emphasized the delay in FIR registration and the improbability of unauthorized transfer without access to passwords or OTP.
- Offered full cooperation with the investigation, including providing mobile phone details and residential address.
For the State
- The prosecution opposed the bail application, citing the applicant's alleged use of the complainant's mobile phone and possession of screenshots.
- Argued that the applicant's involvement in the transaction could not be ruled out at this stage.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail, citing the lack of evidence of wrongful gain and the delay in FIR registration. The State opposed the application, emphasizing the applicant's alleged access to the complainant's mobile phone.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail despite the allegations of unauthorized crypto wallet transactions, considering the delay in FIR registration and the absence of evidence of wrongful gain.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged offence occurred on 13th November, 2024, but the FIR was registered only on 27th February, 2025, indicating a delay of approximately three months. Counsel argued that transferring funds from a crypto wallet requires access to passwords or OTP, making the allegations of unauthorized transfer unbelievable. The applicant also stated her readiness to cooperate with the investigation, including providing her mobile number, Aadhar number, and residential address.
For the Respondent
The learned APP opposed the application, pointing out that the applicant had used the complainant's mobile phone and obtained screenshots. The State contended that the applicant's involvement in the transaction could not be ruled out at this stage, despite the lack of evidence of wrongful gain.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the allegations in the FIR and the role attributed to the applicant. It noted that while the prosecution had opposed the bail application, there was no evidence to indicate that the amount was transferred to the applicant's account or that she had derived any wrongful gain from the transaction. The Court also considered the delay in FIR registration, which raised questions about the credibility of the allegations.
The Court observed that at this stage, the applicant needed to cooperate with the investigation by attending the police station on specified days and providing necessary details. The Court emphasized that the applicant's cooperation would ensure the smooth conduct of the investigation without the need for arrest.
"Considering the allegations in the FIR and the role attributed to this applicant, at this stage the applicant needs to put to certain conditions for seeking co-operation in the investigation."
The Court directed the applicant to attend the police station every Monday between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and whenever called upon by the Investigating Officer. The applicant was also directed to provide her mobile number, Aadhar number, and residential address. Subject to these conditions, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail until the next date of hearing.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded in her anticipatory bail application. The Court directed the applicant to attend the police station every Monday between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and whenever called upon by the Investigating Officer. The applicant was also directed to provide her mobile number, Aadhar number, and residential address. Subject to these conditions, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail until 3rd August, 2026. The Court listed the application for further hearing on the same date.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay in FIR Registration Raises Credibility Questions
- Courts are increasingly scrutinizing delays in FIR registration, especially in cases involving digital transactions.
- Delays may cast doubt on the credibility of allegations and the genuineness of the complaint.
Cooperation with Investigation is Key
- Applicants seeking anticipatory bail must demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
- Providing necessary details, such as mobile numbers, Aadhar numbers, and residential addresses, can strengthen the case for bail.
Crypto Wallet Transactions Require Stringent Scrutiny
- Allegations of unauthorized crypto wallet transactions must be supported by credible evidence.
- Courts are likely to examine the plausibility of such allegations, especially where access to passwords or OTP is required for transactions.
