Grant of Bail in Multi-State Cyber Fraud Based Primarily on Memorandum Statements Without Criminal Antecedents.

The complainant, Medni Patel, was induced via YouTube advertisements and WhatsApp communications to invest ₹1,08,44,025.16 in a fraudulent "UK India Trading Channel"

Upon attempting withdrawal, she was defrauded and the operators became untraceable

Investigation revealed that ₹32.50 lakhs was credited to the account of Yashir Shafi Charalu (Applicant 1), which was later routed to multiple accounts

Arshlan Afak (Applicant 3) and his father were allegedly managing these accounts, while Sakib Farukhdar (Applicant 2) allegedly transported the linked SIM cards and bank kits from Srinagar to Guwahati to facilitate the crime

The applicants were arrested on 19.11.2025 and sought regular bail after being held in custody for approximately five months

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

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) governing the grant of regular bail

It considered the penal provisions under Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 111 (Organized Crime), 3(5) (Common Intention), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act (Punishment for personation using computer resource)

The court further adhered to the settled judicial principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception," emphasizing that continued custodial detention must be warranted by specific factors like criminal antecedents or the likelihood of tampering with evidence

The court noted that while the allegations involve a large-scale, well-organized cyber fraud, the applicants had been in custody since November 2025, constituting a considerable period

The prosecution's case against the applicants primarily rests on memorandum statements, which it acknowledged as weak evidence in the absence of corroborating recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

Critically, despite multiple opportunities, the State failed to produce any report regarding the criminal antecedents of the applicants from Jammu Kashmir

The court reasoned that in the absence of established past criminal records and given that the investigation is still progressing, further incarceration was not justified

It determined that the risk of absconding or tampering could be mitigated by imposing stringent conditions rather than denying liberty

The court directed their release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each; It imposed conditions including: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments during evidence; (ii) mandatory presence during trial; and (iii) personal presence for framing of charges and recording statements under Section 351 BNSS. The trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings within six months