Bail granted in cyber-fraud case for non-compliance with Section 41A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

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.

He was charged under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Section 66D of the IT Act.

The 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.

The 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. 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?

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?

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (Grant of Bail).

The court applied Section 480(3) regarding bail conditions.

It 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.

The court also noted the maximum punishments under Section 318(4) of BNSS (7 years) and Section 66D of the IT Act (3 years).

The court balanced the seriousness of the cyber fraud and the "larger interest of society" against the "personal liberty" of the applicant.

Despite 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.

Crucially, 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.

To 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.

The holding directed his release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one solvent surety.

Specific 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.

The court further directed the trial court to take action against the police authorities for non-compliance with Section 41/41A requirements.