Grant of bail for cyber fraud allegations based primarily on memorandum statements without criminal antecedents.

The complainant, Smt. Medni Patel, was allegedly induced through YouTube advertisements and WhatsApp communications to invest in a fraudulent share trading platform ("UK India Trading Channel"), resulting in a loss of ₹1,08,44,025.16.

Investigation revealed that ₹32.50 lakhs of the defrauded amount was credited to the bank account of applicant Yashir Shafi Charalu and subsequently routed to multiple other accounts.

Applicant Sakib Farukhdar is accused of transporting the linked SIM card and bank kit to Guwahati to facilitate the fraud, while Arshlan Afak is alleged to have managed the accounts in connivance with his father.

The applicants were arrested on 19.11.2025 and sought regular bail after being held in custody for several months while the investigation remained at a preliminary stage.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the nature of the evidence and their period of detention.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The applicants were charged under Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 111 (Organized Crime), 3(5) (Joint Liability), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The court further applied the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly when the state fails to verify criminal antecedents or provide substantive evidence beyond memorandum statements.

The Court observed that while the allegations involve a large-scale cyber fraud exceeding ₹1 crore, the evidence against the present applicants is primarily based on memorandum statements, which are considered weak pieces of evidence.

The Court noted that despite granting the State multiple opportunities to verify the criminal antecedents of the applicants from Jammu Kashmir, no such report was produced.

The Court reasoned that since the applicants have been in custody since 19.11.2025 (a "considerable period") and the investigation is still ongoing without a clear timeline for completion, further custodial detention was not warranted.

The Court balanced the gravity of the organized crime allegations with the lack of direct incriminating recoveries and the applicants' status as permanent residents with deep roots in society.

The Court ordered the release of Yashir Shafi Charalu, Sakib Farukhdar, and Arshlan Afak upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each and further directed the Trial Court to endeavor to conclude the trial within six months.