01Facts
The applicant, a 35-year-old Government Contractor from Srinagar with no criminal antecedents, was arrested on 03.02.2026 in connection with a cyber fraud case involving approximately ₹2.27 Crores.
¶ 1, 3, 5He was charged under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Section 66D of the IT Act.
¶ 1The prosecution alleged that the applicant permitted the use of his bank account for transactions totaling ₹45 Lakhs, of which ₹8.50 Lakhs was transferred to another accused.
¶ 3, 5The applicant moved for regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, contending that he was misinformed by a friend and acted without illegal intent.
¶ 1, 202Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the cyber fraud and his status as a non-resident of the state?
¶ 6ii.2. Whether the investigating authorities failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS) regarding arrest?
¶ 903Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (Grant of Bail).
¶ 1The court applied Section 480(3) regarding bail conditions.
¶ 7It relied on the landmark precedents of *Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI* (2022) 10 SCC 51 and *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* (2014) 8 SCC 273, which mandate strict compliance with Section 41/41A Cr.P.C. for offences punishable with less than seven years imprisonment and establish guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests.
¶ 2, 9The court also noted the maximum punishments under Section 318(4) of BNSS (7 years) and Section 66D of the IT Act (3 years).
¶ 2Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 480
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318Section 3
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 41
04Reasoning
The court balanced the seriousness of the cyber fraud and the "larger interest of society" against the "personal liberty" of the applicant.
¶ 6Despite the prosecution's concerns regarding the applicant being from another state (Jammu & Kashmir) and the risk of absconding, the court noted that the investigation was nearing completion and the applicant had no prior criminal record.
¶ 3, 6Crucially, the court observed a "non-compliance of mandatory clause of Section 41 of Cr.P.C." as no notice under Section 41A was issued prior to arrest, violating the *Arnesh Kumar* guidelines.
¶ 3, 9To mitigate the risk of the applicant's absence during trial while protecting his liberty, the court determined that bail could be granted subject to stringent financial and procedural conditions.
¶ 6, 705Holding
The court allowed the application and granted regular bail to the applicant.
¶ 6The holding directed his release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one solvent surety.
¶ 7Specific conditions included: (i) depositing ₹18 Lakhs before the trial court within 48 hours; (ii) submitting an affidavit of undertaking to attend trial; (iii) depositing his passport; and (iv) marking presence at the local police station monthly.
¶ 6, 7The court further directed the trial court to take action against the police authorities for non-compliance with Section 41/41A requirements.
¶ 9Original Court PDF
Naseer Ahmad Sheikh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh MCRC No. 9995 of 2026 (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:19564)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
