Bail granted in cyber-fraud case due to prolonged incarceration and lack of criminal antecedents.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on December 7, 2024, the applicant, posing as a bank officer, obtained an OTP from the complainant and fraudulently transferred ₹26,74,701 from the complainant’s account.

An FIR (Crime No. 936/2024) was registered for offenses under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the IT Act.

A previous bail application (MCRC No. 5152 of 2025) was rejected on merits on July 25, 2025.

The applicant has been in custody since May 28, 2025.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the progress of the trial, his period of incarceration, and the lack of criminal antecedents?

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

Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy), 317(5) (Stolen property), 111(4) (Organized crime), 323 (Dishonest inducement), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Section 269 (non-appearance), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 (failure to appear), and Section 351 (accused's statement) to establish bail conditions.

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside several mitigating factors. It noted that the applicant has no prior criminal record and that the charge-sheet has already been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with investigation materials.

A significant weight was given to the fact that out of the witnesses examined so far, six have denied the allegations against the applicant, specifically referring to the testimony of Mrs. Sunanda Tiwari.

Considering the applicant has been in jail for nearly a year (since May 28, 2025) and the trial is expected to take a considerable amount of time, the court determined that further detention was not warranted.

The court allowed the application and ordered the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions including an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and mandatory appearance at key trial stages.