Bail Granted in Cyber-Fraud Case After Charge-Sheet Filing and Absence of Recovery from Applicants

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 38/2024, registered at Police Station Bacheli for alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The complainant alleged that he was induced through Telegram links and a purported CoinDCX investment platform to transfer a total of ₹20,91,700, which he could not recover.

During investigation, ₹2,80,000 of the complainant’s transfers was traced to an account in the name of a co-accused; the applicants were implicated on the basis of banking and technical evidence.

The applicants submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed, they were not the ultimate beneficiaries, they had no criminal antecedents, and they had been in custody since 17 May 2026 and 2 April 2026, respectively.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged loss and the investigation evidence.

1. Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, investigation material, completion of the investigation, custody, and other relevant circumstances.

2. Whether bail should be refused on the basis of the alleged financial loss and the banking and technical evidence implicating the applicants.

The applications were considered 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 Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, material collected during investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ criminal antecedents, and their periods in custody.

The Court weighed the alleged loss and the investigation material against the fact that the money had been transferred to various accounts, the ₹1,00,000 seized was from a co-accused’s account rather than the applicants’ accounts, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

It also took account of the applicants’ lack of criminal antecedents and their periods in custody. On those combined circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

It directed that each applicant be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions prohibiting witness inducement or interference with a fair and expeditious trial and requiring attendance on every date fixed by the trial Court until the trial’s disposal.