BAIL DISMISSED DUE TO PRIMA FACIE INVOLVEMENT IN CYBER FRAUD AND MULTIPLE SIMILAR COMPLAINTS.

The accused/applicant, Ritu Gupta, sought regular bail in FIR No. 152/2025 under Section 308/318(4)/319 of BNS, lodged at Police Station Special Cell.

The prosecution alleged that Ritu Gupta, along with co-accused Shiv Shankar and Banwari Lal, committed cyber fraud by orchestrating the "digital arrest" of an old-aged complainant de facto.

The complainant received phone calls from individuals impersonating police officers, who falsely claimed her husband was involved in terrorist activities and threatened them with arrest warrants if they did not comply.

Under duress, the complainant transferred Rs. 94,50,000/- to specific bank accounts.

Rs. 40,00,000/- of this amount was credited to the accused/applicant's bank account.

The accused/applicant claimed to be a victim, stating that co-accused Shiv Shankar and Banwari Lal misused her bank details and SIM card under the pretext of investing in her company.

She further claimed to have lodged a complaint on a web portal about the misuse of her bank particulars prior to receiving a notice to join the investigation.

The prosecution contended that the accused/applicant retained Rs. 33,00,000/- from the Rs. 40,00,000/- received and transmitted the rest to 20 other bank accounts on the same day.

Additionally, the learned APP stated that the accused/applicant received Rs. 7,00,00,000/- in her bank account from different individuals between December 5, 2025, and December 6, 2025, leading to 11 similar complaints against her.

The accused/applicant also deleted all WhatsApp chats from her mobile phone, and the co-accused Shiv Shankar and Banwari Lal are absconding.

The alleged digital arrest occurred on November 30, 2025, and December 1, 2025, while the accused's complaints were lodged on December 5, 2025 (online) and December 18, 2025 (by post).

Whether the accused/applicant is entitled to regular bail in a case involving cyber fraud and "digital arrest" under Sections 308/318(4)/319 of BNS.

The court applied the general principles governing the grant or refusal of regular bail, considering factors such as the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the accused, the strength of the prosecution's prima facie case, the explanation offered by the accused, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The court specifically considered the believability of the accused's explanation for the financial transactions and the timing of her complaints.

The court found the accused/applicant's explanation regarding the influx of Rs. 40,00,000/- into her account as part of an investment pretext, which involved handing over her banking credentials and SIM card, to be prima facie unbelievable.

It noted the unlikelihood of a company director providing such sensitive information for merely testing financial soundness.

Furthermore, the court observed that the complaints lodged by the accused/applicant alleging misuse of her bank particulars were made significantly after the alleged offence, specifically on December 5, 2025, and December 18, 2025, whereas the cyber fraud occurred on November 30, 2025, and December 1, 2025.

The online complaint also lacked specific dates regarding when her documents were allegedly obtained by the co-accused.

The court highlighted the prosecution's claim that the accused retained a significant portion of the defrauded amount and transmitted the rest, and that Rs. 7,00,00,000/- was received in her account from other victims, leading to 11 similar complaints.

The deletion of WhatsApp chats also raised suspicions.

Given the nature and expanse of the cyber fraud, coupled with the similar allegations in 11 other cases, the court concluded that it was not a fit case to grant bail at this stage.

The court held that, considering the nature of the cyber fraud, the lack of believability in the applicant's explanation for the financial transactions, the belated nature of her complaints, and the existence of similar allegations in 11 other cases, it was not fit to grant bail at that stage.