Bail Granted in Alleged Cyber-Fraud Case After Charge-Sheet Filing, Prolonged Custody, and Co-Accused Parity.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging that persons impersonating CBI officers induced the complainant’s family to transfer ₹54,90,000; the applicant was alleged to have withdrawn ₹9,00,000 transferred to a co-accused’s account.

He was charged under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

His first bail application was withdrawn with liberty to renew; his second was rejected on merits.

By this third application, the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 14 June 2025, and five co-accused had been granted bail.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the allegations, custody, and stage of the proceedings

Whether the earlier rejection of the applicant’s second bail application precluded bail on this application

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail.

In exercising that power, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, parity with co-accused, and the likely duration of trial.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

No precedent or separate legal test was cited.

Although the prosecution alleged that the applicant withdrew ₹9,00,000 of the proceeds, the Court also noted that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, he had been in custody since 14 June 2025, and other co-accused had been released on bail.

Considering these circumstances and the likelihood that the trial would take time, the Court granted bail without expressing any view on the merits.

The prior rejection of the second application did not prevent the Court from granting relief on the present application.

It directed that the applicant be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, subject to conditions against influencing persons acquainted with the case, prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and requiring attendance at each trial-court hearing until the trial concludes.