01Facts
The applicant sought regular bail in eFIR No. 60002513/2026, registered at PS Cyber Police Station, Outer North, for alleged offences under Sections 112, 318(4), 317(2), 317(5), 319 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
p. 1The investigation concerned an alleged cyber-enabled APK fraud. The complainant reported being defrauded of ₹6,34,000, while the State submitted that the proceeds of crime in the case ranged between ₹4 crore and ₹5 crore.
pp. 1–3The investigation traced diverted funds, including payments towards credit-card bills and fraudulent gift vouchers used to procure gold jewellery. The applicant was intercepted in Jalandhar while arriving to collect a jewellery parcel; a mobile phone and pocket router were recovered from him, and he was arrested on 19 August 2026.
p. 2The applicant relied on a written compromise with the complainant and a pending petition to quash the FIR. The State opposed bail, citing the gravity of the alleged offence and the applicant’s involvement in eight other FIRs concerning similar frauds.
pp. 2–3Charges had not yet been framed.
p. 402Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, having regard to the alleged scale and nature of the cyber fraud and his alleged involvement in similar cases.
pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether the applicant’s compromise with the complainant and repayment of the complainant’s loss constituted grounds for granting bail.
p. 303Law Applied
The alleged offences were under Sections 112, 318(4), 317(2), 317(5), 319 and 61(2) of the BNS.
p. 1The Court applied the principles that a compromise with one complainant is not, by itself, a ground for bail in a serious criminal case, and that criminal proceedings are not a forum for recovery of money.
p. 3In assessing bail, the Court considered the gravity and reach of the alleged offence, the applicant’s alleged involvement in other similar cases, and the fact that the alleged fraud involved multiple victims.
pp. 3–4Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 112Section 318Section 317Section 319Section 61
04Reasoning
The Court considered the alleged conduct more than conventional cheating: the offender was said to have concealed digital activity through a pocket router, while the investigation indicated multiple transactions and victims and alleged proceeds of ₹4 crore to ₹5 crore.
pp. 2–3It also gave weight to the State’s submission that the applicant was involved in eight other similar FIRs.
p. 3Repayment to the complainant did not resolve the allegations concerning other victims and could not convert the criminal process into a means of recovering money.
p. 3Having regard to the gravity and “expanse” of the alleged offence, the Court found the case unsuitable for bail, notwithstanding that charges had not yet been framed.
p. 405Holding
The Court refused regular bail, holding that the alleged scale and gravity of the fraud, the multiple victims and the applicant’s alleged involvement in similar cases outweighed the claimed compromise with the complainant.
pp. 3–4The bail application and accompanying applications were dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent to inform the applicant.
p. 4Original Court PDF
SouravvsState Of Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
