Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail To Accused In ₹25.6 Lakh Cyber Fraud, Noting No Financial Benefit Was Attributed To Him

The complainant alleged that he was induced through WhatsApp and Telegram groups to invest via the CoinDCX platform and deposited a total of ₹25,60,257 into various bank accounts; after the money was not returned, he lodged a report.

During the investigation, co-accused Sadanand Mahant implicated the applicant, Rahul Kumar Mahant.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that the charge-sheet had been filed, he had no criminal antecedents, and he had been in custody since 19 March 2026.

The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicant managed account holders through whom funds were siphoned.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 34, 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.

The Court assessed the bail request by reference to the circumstances identified in its order, including the nature of the alleged role, whether any financial benefit was attributed to the applicant, criminal antecedents, custody, completion of the investigation by filing the charge-sheet, and the need for further custodial interrogation.

The Court noted that the applicant’s alleged role was described by co-accused Sadanand Mahant, but no financial benefit had been attributed to him, and he had no criminal antecedents.

It also took into account that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 19 March 2026, and further custodial interrogation was not required.

On those circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail, notwithstanding the State’s allegation that he managed account holders involved in siphoning funds.

Release was subject to conditions requiring the applicant to remain available for police interrogation when required, not to influence or dissuade persons acquainted with the facts, and not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case on its own merits.