Distinguishable Role and Lack of Direct Evidence Connecting Accused to Syndicate Transactions Justify Grant of Bail

The applicant, Shivnand Chauhan, was arrested on September 8, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 290/2025 involving an organized cyber fraud syndicate.

The prosecution alleged that the syndicate operated 41 SIM cards to fraudulently obtain ₹18,52,654/- through 41 bank accounts between January 2024 and March 2025.

Specifically, the applicant was accused of using a mobile number registered in the name of his elder mother-in-law to defraud a complainant of ₹1,99,000/-.

Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Telecommunications Act.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration.

2. Whether the applicant's role in the alleged organized crime is sufficiently distinguishable from the co-accused whose bail applications were previously rejected.

The Court primarily considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Substantive charges were registered under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) (dealing with stolen property/cheating), 3(5) (common intention), and 111 (organized crime) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alongside Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunications Act.

The Court also applied the principle that bail may be granted where the accused’s role is distinguishable from other participants and where prolonged pre-trial detention is not warranted by the specific evidence on record.

The Court found that the applicant’s case stood on a different footing than the co-accused; while others used fake SIM cards, the applicant used a SIM issued to a known relative.

The Court noted that the prosecution had mechanically clubbed multiple complaints from the Samnvay Portal to reach a total fraud figure of ₹18,52,654/-, but lacked specific material directly linking the applicant to all 41 accounts or the total sum.

The Court evaluated the Investigating Officer’s affidavit, which confirmed the SIM was in a relative's name, and balanced this against the applicant's custody since September 2025.

It reasoned that because the trial was likely to take considerable time and the specific incriminating material against the applicant was limited compared to the broader syndicate, the applicant met the threshold for bail.

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

The Court imposed several conditions, including: (i) a prohibition on seeking adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) mandatory appearance on trial dates under penalty of Section 269 of the BNS; (iii) strict compliance with Section 209 of the BNS in case of misuse of liberty; and (iv) personal presence for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.