Bail granted in cyber fraud case despite criminal antecedents as charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application seeking regular bail after being arrested on November 13, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 322/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused individuals, misappropriated victim accounts and conducted illegal cyber transactions amounting to ₹52,790/-.

The applicant was arrested based on the memorandum of co-accused persons following an investigation initiated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, the FIR did not name him, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial would be prolonged.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicant's involvement in the fraud and his two previous criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and his criminal history.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It also considered the substantive offenses under Sections 317(4) (Stolen property), 318(2) (Cheating), and 61(2)(a) (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Procedural compliance was mandated under Section 269 of the BNS (Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), and Sections 84 (Proclamation for person absconding), 209 (Punishment for non-appearance), and 351 (Examination of accused) of the BNSS.

The Court balanced the gravity of the cyber fraud allegations and the applicant's prior criminal record against the duration of his pretrial detention.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since November 13, 2025, and the charge-sheet had already been submitted.

Despite the State's objection regarding the misappropriation of ₹52,790/- and the applicant's antecedents, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted given the facts and circumstances of the case.

To safeguard the judicial process, the Court imposed strict conditions to ensure the applicant's participation in the trial and to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at every trial stage (specifically for opening statements, framing of charges, and Section 351 BNSS statements), and must comply with all court proclamations.

Failure to comply allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Section 209 of the BNS or other applicable laws.