01Facts
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.
pp. 1-3The prosecution alleged that the complainant’s acquaintance received a fraudulent SMS regarding a traffic fine containing a malicious hyperlink.
p. 2Upon clicking the link, the victim's bank account was compromised, resulting in a fraudulent debit of ₹2,94,342.51.
p. 2Investigations 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.
¶ 5-7The applicant allegedly received defrauded funds into India Post and Bank of Baroda accounts.
¶ 7-802Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the stage of the investigation.
p. 6 · ¶ 603Law Applied
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].
pp. 1-2Procedural framework for bail governed by Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
p. 1The 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.
¶ 6-7Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 193Section 483Section 94
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 238Section 3Section 318
04Reasoning
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.
¶ 5It 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.
¶ 8The Court highlighted the "serious nature" of the cyber fraud and the manner of its commission, noting that the victim suffered a "substantial financial loss".
p. 7Despite 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.
¶ 6-705Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative and rejected the bail application.
p. 7Given the gravity of the cyber fraud and the stage of the investigation, the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage.
¶ 6-7The Court ordered the dismissal of the application and directed a copy of the order to be sent to the trial court for compliance.
p. 7Original Court PDF
RAJU SHARMAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
