Bail granted in cyber fraud case considering charge-sheet filing and period of incarceration.

The complainant, Pradeep Kumar Khaparde, alleged he was defrauded of approximately ₹50,00,000/- by individuals claiming he had a parcel requiring customs clearances and currency conversion fees

Following an investigation (Crime No. 87/2023), it was revealed through an Investigating Officer’s affidavit that the fraudulent proceeds were layered through multiple accounts.

Specifically, ₹2,58,000/- was transferred from co-accused Sandeep Khare’s account, and ₹2,06,000/- was transferred from co-accused Najma B.’s account into the Federal Bank account of the applicant, Sachin Sahu

The applicant was arrested on November 7, 2025, and charged under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act

The applicant sought regular bail, noting that the charge-sheet had been filed and he had two prior criminal antecedents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the duration of his pretrial detention

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, regarding punishment for cheating by personation using computer resources

Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (punishment for non-appearance), 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), and 351 (evidence in presence of accused) of the BNSS/BNS framework

The Court evaluated the gravity of the cyber-fraud allegations against the procedural status of the trial.

While the State opposed bail by highlighting the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the specific flow of over ₹4.6 lakh of defrauded money into his account, the Court focused on the period of incarceration and the likelihood of a protracted trial.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since November 7, 2025, and that the investigation had culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet.

Applying the principle that continued detention is unnecessary when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon and the investigation is complete, the Court determined that the applicant’s interest in liberty outweighed the State's objections, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure his participation in the trial

The holding was contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties

The Court imposed several mandatory conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments during the evidence stage; (ii) he must appear personally or through counsel on every hearing date; (iii) he must appear in person for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of his Section 351 BNSS statement; and (iv) any default or misuse of liberty would allow the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 84, 209, or 269 of the BNS/BNSS