Bail granted where applicant is not the primary beneficiary and lacks direct involvement in cyber-fraud transactions.

The complainant, Shubhender Mondal, alleged he was defrauded of ₹1,99,76,000/- through a fraudulent share trading link between June and August 2024

While the applicant, Jagsir Singh, was not named in the FIR, he was arrested on August 20, 2024, following a disclosure statement by co-accused Abhijeet Singh

The prosecution alleged that ₹36,00,000/- of the defrauded amount was transferred to a company, Ultra Wings Nutrition Pvt. Ltd., owned by Abhijeet Singh, who claimed he acted on the applicant's instructions

The applicant moved for bail, contending he was neither a beneficiary nor an account holder of the said company

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering he was not named in the FIR and has already been granted bail in three similar cases involving identical facts

2. Whether the lack of direct financial benefit to the applicant and his prolonged judicial custody warrant his release

The Court considered the provisions for regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (or the relevant procedural law applicable at the time of the 2024 IPC/IT Act charges).

It focused on judicial principles regarding parity and the conduct of the accused, specifically noting the absence of the applicant's name in the FIR and the lack of evidence showing he was a direct beneficiary of the proceeds of crime

The court also acknowledged the importance of prior bail orders in similar FIRs as a factor in determining the likelihood of the applicant fleeing or tampering with justice

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since August 20, 2024, and was notably not named in the original FIR

Relying on the submissions and the record, the Court noted that the primary beneficiary of the fraudulent transfers appeared to be co-accused Abhijeet Singh, through his company Ultra Wings Nutrition Pvt. Ltd.

Importantly, the Court highlighted that the applicant had already been granted bail by three different courts (including the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram) on the same set of allegations and identical facts across multiple FIRs

The State was unable to dispute that no money had been credited to the applicant’s personal account

Consequently, the Court found that the grounds for continued detention were insufficient.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two reliable sureties, subject to conditions including regular appearance before the trial court, surrendering travel autonomy (not leaving the country without permission), and refraining from tampering with evidence or witnesses

The application was disposed of accordingly