Bail granted where no prima facie direct involvement in cyber fraud was established after charge-sheet.

The three bail applications arose from the same Ainthapali Police Station Case No. 47 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 388 of 2026, pending before the learned SDJM, Sambalpur.

The petitioners were accused of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 317(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

During verification of 14 complaints received through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, the police alleged that bank accounts standing in the petitioners’ names had been used for transactions involving proceeds of online cyber fraud.

During investigation, the petitioners stated that co-accused Rudra Prasad Tripathy had induced them to open “mule accounts” in return for a commission of 10% of the transaction amount, and that they had handed over the account credentials to him.

The investigating agency reported credits of Rs.3,89,164/- into Sumanta Munda’s account, Rs.36,511/- into Niral Bhengra’s account, and Rs.16,70,000/- into Amit Aind’s account, after which the amounts were allegedly diverted from the accounts.

The petitioners had been in custody since 19 February 2026, and the police had already filed the charge-sheet.

Their bail applications had earlier been rejected by the concerned Sessions Court.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations concerning the use of their bank accounts in online financial fraud?

Whether the petitioners’ custody, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, together with the absence of prima facie material showing their direct involvement in the cyber fraud, justified their release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 317(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning cheating, handling or dealing with proceeds of crime, criminal conspiracy, identity theft and cheating by personation using computer resources.

At the bail stage, the Court assessed whether the record disclosed prima facie involvement warranting continued detention, while refraining from expressing any final opinion on the merits.

The Court acknowledged that the petitioners’ bank accounts had allegedly been used in online financial fraud and that substantial amounts had been credited into some of those accounts.

However, the investigation indicated that co-accused Rudra Prasad Tripathy had induced the petitioners to open the mule accounts for commission and had obtained their account credentials, after which the accounts were used for the fraudulent transactions.

On the materials placed before it, the Court found no prima facie evidence of the petitioners’ direct involvement in conducting the online financial fraud.

Since the petitioners had remained in custody since 19 February 2026 and the charge-sheet had already been filed, the need for their further custodial detention was substantially reduced.

Without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court therefore considered bail appropriate.

Sumanta Munda, Niral Bhengra @ Niraj, Amit Aind and Bijaya Kak were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the court in seisin of the case and such further conditions as that court might impose.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

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