RAHUL VERMA vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA

C.R.M.(A) 156 of 2026
Rahul Verma
Versus
State of West Bengal

For the petitioner : Mr. Milon Mukherjee, ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee
Ms. Priyanka Sarkar
Mr. Amitabrata Hait
Mr. Manish Sharma


...Advocates

For the State : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, ld. APP
Ms. Manaswita Mukherjee

...Advocates



Lastly heard on : 09.04.2026
Judgment on : 22.04.2026

JAY SENGUPTA, J:

2
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with GR Case
No. 8463 of 2025 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, arising out of
Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, Cyber Crime Police Station Case
No. 57 of 2025 dated 05.11.2025 under Sections 66C/66D of the
Information Technology Act read with Sections 111, 317(4), 318(2),
319(2), 336, 338, 339, 340 and 61(2) of the BNS.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted as follows. The present petitioner was arrested on
01.11.2025 in connection with an earlier case being Bidhannagar
Police Station Cyber Crime Case No.69 dated 03.04.2024 under
Sections 120B, 406, 419 and 420 of the Penal Code. The said case
covered the period of alleged offences for the year 2024. The present
one is a suo moto case started by the investigating officer of the earlier
case. This case covers not only the same period, but also the
subsequent periods in 2025 and thereafter. Therefore, there ought to
have been only one case dealing with such similar allegations. Charge
sheet has now been submitted in connection with the first case. The
principal accused in the instant case are the beneficiaries of the
accounts where bulk of the money went. These bank accounts belong
to the members of the Ruia family, who were granted anticipatory bail
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court during vacation. The State has
now challenged it before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The gist of the
allegations leveled in the second complaint that is to say, the present
complaint is that a part of the cheated funds of cyber fraud victim was

3
found to have been initially transferred to SBI Account
No.42546078225 and thereafter, immediately siphoned off to SBI
Current Account No.39090018311 of one Hughli Machineries Private
Limited. The said company subsequently transferred the money to
another current account of the same company. Searches showed that
there were 11 current bank accounts against which the National
Cybercrime reporting portal recorded 544 complaints involving
cheated money of approximately Rs. 97 crores. It was further alleged
that multiple linked companies had transactions with these 11 bank
accounts and DIN searches indicated that 16 inter-linked companies
had 11 company directors, who collectively held directorships in 186
companies across India. The NCRP records allegedly reflected 1379
complaints with total losses of approximately Rs.315 crores. The
money trail allegedly revealed the involvement of members of the Ruia
family through multiple mule accounts and crypto currency wallets. It
was further alleged that the racket was operational since 2024 or
before and had defrauded over 1000 victims in India through fake
investment schemes, digital arrest scams and other cyber frauds. It
appears that the de facto complainant had identified members of the
Ruia family as the key beneficiaries and they have been granted
anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, it
would be futile to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present
petitioner who is clearly standing on a much better footing.
3. Learned senior counsel representing the State has submitted as
follows. The first case pertains to a complaint filed by a single

4
individual. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted not
against the Ruias, but against the present petitioner. However, it later
appeared that the role of the Ruias was required to be explored
further. In fact, the issue of two FIRs taken in a revision fell flat before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which nonetheless granted liberty to pray
for an appropriate order before this Court. In any event, if after
registration of an FIR, it is found that the offence involved a larger
conspiracy and a greater expanse, then a further FIR would be
maintainable. In fact, the present case covers fraud perpetrated on
several victims involving thousands of crores of rupees. The present
petitioner is not only the one who was instrumental in working out of
the fraud, but also the beneficiary of a part of the proceeding. Some
other sums might have gone to the other beneficiaries. It is true that
the present petitioner is a close associate of the Ruia family. However,
while the primary allegation against the members of the Ruia family is
that of receiving tainted money in their accounts, the present
petitioner is the one who had been found committing the fraud.
Additionally, he is also a beneficiary of some of such fraudulent
transactions. The proceeding obtained for cyber crimes were traced to
a bank account of the said Hughli Machineries Private Limited, which
had 11 current bank accounts. These bank accounts were accessed
over the internet by the present petitioner through his mobile phone
from another SBI account of the Hughli Machineries Private Limited.
The petitioner transferred the proceeds of crime to the bank accounts
of 16 companies as also to the personal bank account of the present

5
petitioner. The IP address which was used to siphon off the proceeds
of crime was traced to a mobile number belonging to the present
petitioner. Reliance is placed on the customer application form in this
regard. Thereafter proceeds of crime were transferred from the said
Hughli Machineries Private Limited to the bank accounts of the
companies where the petitioner was a director. Thereafter, the
petitioner was instrumental in converting the proceeds of crime into
crypto currency and transferring the same to countries like Saudi
Arabia, Dubai, etc. to various decentralized crypto currency wallets.
This was specially done to evade detection of the proceeds of the crime
by the National Law Enforcement Agencies. Therefore, the petitioner
stands on a different footing than the members of the Ruia Family
who were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The petitioner was
instrumental in organizing the fraud and was also a beneficiary of the
fraud. In any event, the grant of anticipatory bail to the members of
the Ruia family has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Reliance is placed on the decision in P. Chidambaram vs.
Directorate of Enforcement reported at 2019 9 SCC 2024 and it is
submitted that economic offences stand as a different class as they
affect the economic fabric of the society. Therefore, the extraordinary
remedy of anticipatory bail has to be exercised sparingly in the case of
economic offences. The offences here are of extremely serious nature.
There is also a possibility of the petitioner fleeing away from the
country as he is adept in using modern technology. Reliance is also
placed on Sushila Agarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

6
reported at (2020) 5 SCC 1; Kishor Vishwasrao Patil Vs. Deepak
Yashwant Patil and Anr., reported at 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528;
Pratibha Manchanda and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported
at (2023) 8 SCC 181.
4. First, the Hon’ble Judge who had decided the application for
anticipatory bail of some other co-accused is having a different
determination now and is a part of a regular Division Bench.
Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Shekhar Prasad Mahto @ Shekhar Kushwaha vs. The Registrar
General, Jharkhand High Court & Anr., 2025 SCC Online SC 2280,
this Bench, as the regular Bench taking up applications for
anticipatory bail, ought to entertain the present application filed by
the petitioner.
5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted anticipatory bail to
some other co-accused being the members of the Ruia family who
were allegedly the beneficiaries of the present fraud. However, the said
order has been challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.

6. In any event, it appears that the present petitioner stands on a
different footing than such other co-accused. Without going into the
quantum of benefits that each of the accused might have derived, it is
evident that the present petitioner was allegedly not only the ultimate
beneficiary of the fraud, but, unlike such other co-accused, was also a
prime perpetrator of the crime. It may require further effort to remove
the layers, find out the ultimate beneficiaries of the fraud and

7
establish a case against them. A co-accused who is only a beneficiary
may even try to find fault with such further steps in lifting the veil.
However, the present petitioner was practically caught red handed
while perpetrating the alleged fraud which, in turn, transmitted
tainted money even to other countries and into different mediums
including crypto currency wallets. Therefore, the petitioner stands on
a distinct footing than the other accused, who were granted
anticipatory bail.
7. It is settled law that when a larger conspiracy is unearthed at a
subsequent stage than an earlier single instance of cheating or fraud
that might have been alleged by a single victim, a further FIR can be
registered to unravel the true expanse of the fraud. On this, reliance is
placed on State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 SCC
Online SC 358.
8. It is also an established position of law that economic offences
affecting a large number of individuals stand as a different class as
they affect the economic fabric of the society. Although grant of
anticipatory bail cannot be said to be barred in such cases, however,
due care and caution need to be exercised in granting anticipatory bail
to an accused in such cases.
9. In the present case, the alleged fraud is of humongous proportion,
supposedly involving thousands of crores of rupees and affecting
numerous victims. Proceeds of crime were obtained from fake
investment schemes, digital arrest scams and other cyber frauds and

8
then transferred to mule accounts and crypto currency wallets, some
even sent abroad.
10. Here, the prosecution has referred to the manner in which proceeds of
crime were transferred from one account to another by creating
different layers and thereafter, some of the proceeds of crime were
converted into crypto currency and even transferred to other
countries. The State has also referred to the alleged use of the
petitioner’s mobile phone and IP address by the petitioner to give effect
to the fraudulent transactions while operating the bank accounts of
the concerned companies. The petitioner was, thus, not only a
substantial beneficiary of such crime, but also a prime perpetrator of
the fraud.
11. The prosecution has also flagged the possibility of the petitioner
fleeing the country, especially considering his deftness in using
modern technology.
12. Moreover, the petitioner has a criminal antecedent and is already in
custody in connection with the said case.
13. Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available
in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting
anticipatory bail.
14. Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to
the parties, upon completion of requisite formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)

9
Later:
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for
stay of the order.
Learned Senior counsel representing the State opposes the same.
The prayer is considered and is rejected.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)