Bail granted to salaried employee operating employer’s account absent evidence of personal benefit after charge-sheet filing.

The applicant, Rajendra Kumar, sought regular bail in FIR No. 0021 of 2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Kumaon Division, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 3(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIR initially named an unknown person and concerned an alleged digital-arrest fraud involving ₹50,00,000 credited to the bank account of M/s Cosmos Enterprises, whose proprietor was Bhupendra Singh.

The applicant was employed as a supervisor in the firm and was alleged to have operated the relevant account.

The charge-sheet had already been filed, and Bhupendra Singh, the proprietor and alleged principal beneficiary, had subsequently been granted bail by the trial court.

The applicant had been in custody since 31 August 2025.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail after filing of the charge-sheet, considering that the bank account allegedly used in the transaction belonged to the firm’s proprietor and the applicant was only a salaried supervisor.

Whether the seriousness of the alleged digital-arrest offence and the possibility of the applicant repeating similar conduct justified denial of bail.

The Court applied the provisions under which the applicant was charge-sheeted—Sections 3(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000—which address joint criminal liability, cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource, and criminal conspiracy, respectively.

The Court applied the established bail principle that, without expressing a final opinion on the merits, the court must assess the material presently available, the nature of the applicant’s alleged role, the status of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and the likelihood of misuse of liberty.

The Court also noted that the offences were triable by a Magistrate and imposed conditions to secure the applicant’s attendance and prevent further unlawful activity.

The Court found that the relevant bank account stood in the name of Bhupendra Singh, proprietor of M/s Cosmos Enterprises, rather than in the applicant’s name.

Although the applicant had operated the account, the Court considered his position as a salaried employee and held that mere operation of the account, particularly while acting under the employer’s direction, was insufficient at the bail stage to establish his involvement conclusively.

The filing of the charge-sheet reduced the need for further custodial interrogation, and the applicant had remained in custody since 31 August 2025.

The Court also took into account that Bhupendra Singh, alleged to be the proprietor and actual beneficiary, had been granted bail.

Although the State relied on the seriousness of the digital-arrest allegations and the possibility of repetition, the Court considered those concerns capable of being addressed through appropriate bail conditions.

The bail application was allowed, and Rajendra Kumar was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The conditions required him to appear on every date of trial without unnecessary adjournments, surrender his passport within one week of release and not leave India without prior permission, and refrain from engaging in similar activities in the future.

The trial court was directed to proceed independently and not be influenced by the observations made in the bail order.