Filing of a charge-sheet does not entitle an accused to bail in serious cyber-fraud cases.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime/FIR No. 30/2026 registered at Police Station Bag Sevaniya, District Bhopal, for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged an online investment fraud of approximately ₹36,74,000, in which the complainant was induced through a WhatsApp share-trading group to deposit money into accounts provided to her.

During investigation, accused Amit Dhargawe was arrested in connection with the account into which the money was transferred.

The allegation against the applicant was that he facilitated or provided the corporate account used for transferring the alleged fraudulent funds.

The applicant denied involvement, contending that he merely arranged the account for ₹5,000, had not received or retained the cheated amount, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the applicant had actively facilitated a planned cyber-fraud and that his role, along with the material collected during investigation, required consideration at trial.

1. Whether the applicant, allegedly involved in arranging or providing a corporate account used in an online financial fraud, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of direct receipt of the alleged cheated amount, and the applicant’s alleged receipt of only ₹5,000 justified grant of bail at that stage.

3. Whether the seriousness of the alleged cyber and economic offences, the applicant’s attributed role, and the material collected during investigation warranted denial of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, concerning cheating, identity-related and electronic offences, common intention, and computer-related fraud.

The Court applied the established bail principle that, at the bail stage, it should not conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence or conclusively determine the accused’s defence; rather, it must consider the prima facie material, nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the accused, and the likelihood of interference with the trial.

The filing of a charge-sheet does not, by itself, create an entitlement to bail, particularly where serious cyber and economic offences and electronic and financial evidence are involved.

The Court found that the prosecution material connected the applicant with the financial channel allegedly used to execute the fraudulent transactions.

It declined to accept at the bail stage the applicant’s contention that he only arranged a corporate account, did not receive the principal amount, and obtained merely ₹5,000, holding that these were matters of defence requiring consideration during trial.

The Court further held that the evidentiary value of the applicant’s memorandum statement and the corroborative investigation material could not be finally assessed in the bail proceedings.

Given the alleged misuse of electronic records, identity information and financial accounts, and the wider ramifications of cyber-fraud offences, the Court adopted a cautious approach.

The filing of the charge-sheet did not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant’s alleged facilitative role, and the fact that the trial had not commenced.

It held that the applicant’s alleged role in facilitating the corporate account used in the online fraud, together with the seriousness of the cyber and economic offences and the material collected during investigation, did not justify release on bail at that stage.

The first regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS was accordingly rejected.