Bail granted to co-proprietor where the disputed account was operated by another and investigation was complete.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Cyber Crime CID CB, Odisha P.S. Case No. 0053 of 2024, corresponding to CT Case No. 04 of 2026, involving alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2)-(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The informant was allegedly induced to invest in a fraudulent investment application and transferred approximately Rs.1.30 crore through multiple transactions.

Of this amount, Rs.71.50 lakh was credited through eight transactions to the account of Maruti Construction maintained with Cosmos Bank.

The petitioner was one of the two proprietors of Maruti Construction, along with Vijaybhai Ashokbhai Balar.

The petitioner contended that the account was exclusively operated by Balar and that he was merely a name lender with no role in the alleged transactions.

The petitioner had been in custody since 20 January 2026, and the investigation had concluded with submission of the charge-sheet.

His bail application had previously been rejected by the Additional Sessions Court-cum-Presiding Officer, OPID Court, Sambalpur.

Whether the petitioner, one of the joint proprietors of Maruti Construction whose bank account received Rs.71.50 lakh from the informant, was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the allegations arising from the account connected with him.

Whether the petitioner’s continued detention was necessary when the charge-sheet had been filed, the allegations were substantially based on documentary evidence, and the account was stated to have been operated by the co-proprietor.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner’s specific role, the stage of the proceedings, the likelihood of absconding or influencing witnesses, and the availability of documentary evidence.

The alleged offences were assessed under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2)-(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act.

The Court also applied the established bail principle that allegations are not proof at the pre-trial stage and that detention must be justified by considerations such as flight risk, interference with witnesses, or obstruction of the trial.

The Court acknowledged that Rs.71.50 lakh had been transferred from the informant’s account to the Maruti Construction account, which stood in the names of the petitioner and Balar.

However, the State confirmed that the account was operated by Balar, supporting the petitioner’s contention that his specific role required adjudication at trial rather than continued custodial detention.

The FIR had initially been registered against unknown persons, the petitioner had remained in custody since 20 January 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Since the prosecution case was based substantially on documentary evidence that had already been collected during investigation, the Court found no material indicating that the petitioner would abscond or threaten, influence, induce, or coerce witnesses if released.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court therefore considered bail appropriate.

The release was subject to conditions that the petitioner would not leave India without prior permission, would deposit his passport or file an affidavit stating that he had none, would not threaten or influence witnesses, and would cooperate with the trial.

The BLAPL was accordingly disposed of.