Clean criminal antecedents and gender justify regular bail for women in cyber-fraud cases.

The four applicants, fresh B.A. graduates aged between 21 and 26, were arrested on 27.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 44/2025 registered at Police Station Nagarnar.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants participated in an online fraud amounting to ₹19,68,660/-.

According to the Investigating Officer’s affidavit, the applicants worked at a call center named "Ganesh Solution" operated by co-accused Om Prakash Gupta.

It was alleged they used aliases to contact policyholders of lapsed insurance policies, inducing them to deposit money into fraudulent accounts under false promises of high returns, and subsequently shared the proceeds.

The applicants argued they were merely salaried employees, did not own the bank accounts or mobile numbers mentioned in the FIR, and had no criminal antecedents.

A charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicants have remained in judicial custody since their arrest.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given their status as women, the filing of the charge-sheet, and their lack of criminal history.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court the power to grant bail.

Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which pertains to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, which penalizes cheating by personation using computer resources.

The Court also considered the settled principle regarding the significance of the accused being female and the absence of prior criminal records in bail adjudications.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations involving organized cyber-fraud and the State's submission that the applicants were aware of the fraudulent nature of the call center's activities.

However, the Court weighed these allegations against several mitigating factors: the applicants are women, they have no prior criminal history, the investigation is largely complete with the filing of the charge-sheet, and they have been incarcerated since December 2025.

The Court reasoned that since the trial is likely to be protracted, continued detention was unnecessary.

The Court concluded that the interests of justice would be served by granting bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure the applicants' participation in the trial process.

The release is contingent upon each applicant furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The holding is subject to specific conditions: the applicants must not seek adjournments during evidence [para 8(i)], must appear personally at every hearing unless excused [para 8(ii)], and must be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS [para 8(iv)].

Failure to comply may result in proceedings under Section 209 and 269 of the BNS or Section 84 of the BNSS.