Completed investigation and prolonged trial justify regular bail for offences punishable up to seven years.

The petitions were filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in FIR No. 143 dated 25 April 2026, registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Gurugram, under Sections 112 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR arose from a technical investigation into a suspected mule bank account involving transactions of approximately ₹1.70 crore and its alleged connection with cyber fraud.

The prosecution alleged that Vijay, Hardik Maini and co-accused Jony had conspired with Sahil to procure and provide current bank accounts to cyber-fraudsters on commission.

Both petitioners were arrested on 25 April 2026. The investigation had concluded and the challan had been presented, although the trial had not commenced.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the completion of investigation, filing of the challan, period of custody, and the nature and punishment of the alleged offences?

Whether the allegations and material relied upon by the prosecution—particularly the recovery of SIM cards, the alleged use of one SIM in the offence, and the disclosure statement of a co-accused—required the petitioners’ continued incarceration pending trial?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C., which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The Court considered the established bail principles that continued pre-trial detention is not justified where investigation is complete, the challan has been filed, custodial interrogation is no longer required, the accused have undergone substantial custody, and the trial is likely to take time.

The Court also considered the nature of the offences, their maximum punishment of seven years, their being triable by the Magistrate, the absence of significant criminal antecedents, and the possibility of securing the accused’s presence and protecting the prosecution case through appropriate bail conditions.

The Court found that investigation against the petitioners had concluded and the challan had been presented, eliminating the need for further custodial interrogation.

Although Vijay was alleged to have procured bank accounts, possessed SIM cards, conspired with other accused, and received ₹30,000 from the proceeds of crime, the Court considered the nature of the allegations alongside the fact that the offences carried a maximum punishment of seven years and were triable by the Magistrate.

In Hardik Maini’s case, the prosecution attributed no specific transaction or overt act to him, and the relevant SIM card was not linked to any identified transaction.

The Court further noted that both petitioners had remained in custody since 25 April 2026, the trial had not commenced, and the proceedings were likely to take considerable time. Consequently, continued incarceration was held to serve no useful purpose, subject to safeguards against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, absconding, or repeating similar offences.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats, witness contact, and evidence tampering; restricting travel outside India without prior permission; requiring disclosure and verification of residential addresses, PAN, Aadhaar, bank accounts and immovable property details; mandating reporting of changes in address or mobile number; and requiring attendance before the Trial Court without unauthorized absence.

Any violation was left open to result in cancellation of bail and issuance of appropriate coercive process.