Bail denied where serious fraud allegations and material indicate the accused’s active involvement.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a case registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced through WhatsApp and a mobile application to transfer ₹1,49,50,000 for purported share trading, and was later asked to make further deposits to withdraw the investment.

The applicant relied on completion of the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 21 February 2026, lack of criminal antecedents, likely delay in trial, and bail granted to co-accused.

The State opposed bail, referring to 26 complaints, ₹5,00,000 found in the applicant’s bank account, and the applicant’s SIM card being operated from Kathmandu, Nepal.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in the circumstances of the case, notwithstanding completion of the investigation, his period of custody, and bail granted to co-accused?

The application was made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Court’s stated approach was to assess the facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material indicating the applicant’s alleged role; it cited no precedent or more detailed bail test.

The Court acknowledged the allegations of serious online fraud and found the material cited by the State significant: 26 complaints from different cities, ₹5,00,000 in the applicant’s bank account, and a SIM card allegedly being operated from Kathmandu.

On that basis, it considered the applicant’s alleged role active and held that the seriousness of the allegations and those circumstances outweighed the grounds advanced for bail, including completion of the investigation and parity with co-accused.

It rejected the applicant’s second bail application under Section 483 BNSS.