Bail Denied in Cyber Fraud Involving Phishing Hyperlinks and Promotion of Fraudulent Applications

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on December 30, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant’s acquaintance received a fraudulent SMS regarding a traffic fine containing a malicious hyperlink.

Upon clicking the link, the victim's bank account was compromised, resulting in a fraudulent debit of ₹2,94,342.51.

Investigations revealed the applicant operated a YouTube channel ("Godearning.786") where he posted videos instructing others on how to commit cyber fraud using "WIN GO" apps and hacking links to obtain user data and OTPs.

The applicant allegedly received defrauded funds into India Post and Bank of Baroda accounts.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of the investigation.

Sections 318(4) [Cheating], 3(5) [Common Intention], and 238 [Causing disappearance of evidence] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act [Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource].

Procedural framework for bail governed by Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The principle that the gravity of the offense, the complexity of the digital evidence, and the potential for tampering with evidence (noted by the applicant's deletion of mobile data) are critical factors in denying bail in cybercrime cases.

The Court analyzed the Investigating Officer’s affidavit, which mapped the digital footprint of the fraud to the applicant’s email ID and mobile number.

It noted that the applicant did not merely commit a single act of fraud but actively facilitated a wider scheme by hosting a YouTube channel that disseminated hacking tools and "SMS tasks" for cyber fraud.

The Court highlighted the "serious nature" of the cyber fraud and the manner of its commission, noting that the victim suffered a "substantial financial loss".

Despite the applicant’s claim of no criminal antecedents and the fact that the trial would take time, the Court found the prima facie evidence of his involvement in organized cybercrime, combined with his own memorandum statement admitting to the deletion of incriminating data, outweighed the arguments for his release.

Given the gravity of the cyber fraud and the stage of the investigation, the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage.

The Court ordered the dismissal of the application and directed a copy of the order to be sent to the trial court for compliance.