Denial of Bail for Cyber Fraud Involving Systematic Misuse of Bank Accounts and Large-Scale Monetary Transactions.

The applicant filed a first bail application seeking regular bail following his arrest in Crime No. 322/2025.

The prosecution alleged that a bank account in Central Bank of India, Kondagaon, was utilized for cyber fraud, showing transactions totaling approximately ₹72,09,424 between January 2024 and March 2025.

Further investigation revealed that approximately ₹9.77 crores had been credited and ₹9.75 crores withdrawn from associated accounts.

The applicant was implicated via memorandum statements of co-accused Lokeshwar Hirwani and Kamleshwar Nag, who alleged the applicant induced them to open accounts and subsequently seized control of their passbooks, ATM cards, and internet banking credentials.

The applicant argued he was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that no incriminating material (except a mobile phone) was seized from him.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected during the investigation.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

It considered the penal provisions under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 111(2), 111(2)(b), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to organized crime and fraud, alongside Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which penalizes personation for cheating using computer resources.

The court's discretion was guided by established principles regarding the gravity of the offense, the severity of the punishment, the risk of the accused absconding, and the potential for tampering with evidence.

The High Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the applicant's assertions of innocence.

While the applicant contended he was implicated solely on the basis of a memorandum statement, the Court noted the specific evidence presented by the State, including the seizure of various bank passbooks, ATM cards, and SIM cards from the applicant's possession.

The Court observed that 41 online cyber fraud complaints had been received nationwide linked to the specific accounts the applicant allegedly controlled.

The Court reasoned that the sheer volume of transactions (nearly ₹10 crores) and the organized nature of the cyber fraud indicated a high risk that the applicant might abscond or repeat the offenses if released.

The Court found that the gravity of the allegations and the material evidence outweighed the applicant's plea of no criminal antecedents and his status as a bread earner.

The First Bail Application was rejected.

The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.