Bail granted where accused facilitated cyber fraud without direct involvement and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The four petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with Bhawanipatna Cyber Crime and Economic Offences Police Station Case No. 20 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 1233 of 2025, pending before the learned SDJM, Bhawanipatna.

The alleged offences were under Sections 336, 318, 340, 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 prosecution alleged that certain petitioners knowingly permitted cyber fraudsters to use their bank accounts, while others supplied bank credentials collected from different persons in exchange for payment, thereby facilitating online financial fraud.

Fraudulently obtained funds were credited to some petitioners’ accounts and subsequently diverted.

The petitioners had remained in custody for some time, the charge sheet had been filed, and co-accused Chintamani Meher had already been granted bail by the High Court in BLAPL No. 4510 of 2026.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the allegations that they facilitated cyber fraud by permitting the use of bank accounts or supplying bank credentials.

Whether the petitioners’ period of custody, filing of the charge sheet, and the grant of bail to a similarly placed co-accused justified their release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which confers jurisdiction on the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

It considered the nature of the allegations under Sections 336, 318, 340, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to identity theft, cheating, use of forged or electronic records, common intention or criminal conspiracy-related liability, and cheating by personation through computer resources.

The Court also applied the general bail considerations of the apparent nature of the accused persons’ involvement, the period of custody, completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet, and parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail.

No separate precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court acknowledged that allegations existed against the petitioners for facilitating the use of bank accounts by cyber fraudsters.

However, on examination of the record, it found that none of the petitioners appeared to have been directly involved in carrying out the online financial fraud itself.

The Court further considered that the petitioners had been in custody for some time and that the charge sheet had already been submitted, reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

The grant of bail to co-accused Chintamani Meher was also treated as a relevant parity consideration.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that the circumstances justified bail.

The High Court directed that Sudam Meher, Gopabandhu Meher, Naresh Kumar, Durga Kanta Mahala @ Durgakanta Mahala, and Dayanidhi Sarap be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of ₹50,000 each with one solvent surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court in seisin of the case, subject to such terms and conditions as that court considered appropriate.

The applications were accordingly disposed of, and the order was directed to be communicated electronically to the concerned court and jail authorities.