Bail denied where substantial fraud proceeds entered petitioner’s proprietorship account linked to multiple complaints.

The complainant, Sambhram Das, was added to WhatsApp groups relating to investment and, allegedly acting on the guidance of the group administrators, invested ₹2,06,07,500. He later discovered that he could not withdraw the amount and alleged online financial fraud.

During investigation in Cyber Crime (CID) P.S. Case No. 11 of 2025, ₹40,32,500 of the complainant’s investment was traced to Bandhan Bank Account No. 10200001767490, held in the name of Maa Bhagabati Garments, whose proprietor was the petitioner. The account was also linked with five complaints on the NCR/Samanvaya Portal.

The petitioner was arrested, his application for bail before the Sessions Court was unsuccessful, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed. He then sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite the filing of the charge-sheet, where ₹40,32,500 from the alleged fraud was traced to an account of a proprietorship concern belonging to him.

Whether the absence of material showing that the petitioner directly contacted or induced the complainant to invest was sufficient to justify grant of bail.

Whether the account’s linkage with five other complaints constituted material relevant to the petitioner’s bail application.

The Court considered the petitioner’s prayer under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

It also considered the allegations under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2)–(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The governing bail principle applied was that the Court must assess the material collected during investigation and the circumstances connecting the accused with the alleged offence; the filing of a charge-sheet does not, by itself, require grant of bail where the record discloses prima facie incriminating circumstances.

The Court accepted that the complainant’s money had been traced to the bank account of Maa Bhagabati Garments, a proprietorship concern belonging to the petitioner, thereby disclosing a prima facie connection between the petitioner and the alleged financial fraud.

Although the petitioner argued that he had neither induced the complainant nor personally transacted with the account, the Court held that the receipt of ₹40,32,500 in the account standing in the name of his proprietorship was itself incriminating at the bail stage.

The additional circumstance that the account was linked with five complaints further weighed against grant of bail. The filing of the charge-sheet did not outweigh these circumstances.

The bail application was rejected and disposed of. However, pursuant to the petitioner’s alternative oral prayer, he was granted liberty to renew his bail application after the examination of some witnesses. A soft copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.