Bail granted in cyber-fraud "digital arrest" case on parity and condition of phased monetary deposit.

The applicant filed his second bail application following the dismissal of his first application on October 14, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in a cyber fraud case (Crime No. 302/2025) where a retired school principal was "digitally arrested" by individuals impersonating police and CBI officials.

The victim was coerced into transferring approximately Rs. 20,81,382/- via RTGS into various accounts.

The applicant has been in custody since July 30, 2025.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the connection to the crime was based solely on disclosure memos of co-accused, investigation was complete, and a co-accused (Rahul) had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused and prolonged incarceration under the newly enacted procedural laws.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which corresponds to Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., governing the special powers of the High Court regarding bail.

Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 319(2), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act (Punishment for personation by using computer resource).

Discretionary power to impose monetary conditions for bail as established in judicial practice to balance the interests of justice.

The court balanced the gravity of the cyber fraud allegations against several mitigating factors: the applicant had been in continuous custody for approximately one year (since July 30, 2025), the investigation was complete with the charge-sheet filed, and the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time.

A critical factor in the court's reasoning was the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Rahul had been granted bail in May 2026 under similar circumstances.

While the State opposed bail due to the nature of the offence, the court determined that the applicant’s willingness to deposit a portion of the defrauded amount (Rs. 2,50,000/-) "under protest" sufficiently mitigated the flight risk and served the interest of justice.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, subject to the condition that the applicant deposit a total of Rs. 2,50,000/- in fixed deposits: Rs. 1,00,000/- prior to release and the remaining Rs. 1,50,000/- in three equal monthly installments of Rs. 50,000/- following release.