Gravity of financial fraud via fraudulently activated SIM cards warrants denial of regular bail.

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in a second application based on the grounds of prolonged judicial custody and the examination of only 3 out of 16 witnesses, notwithstanding the prior rejection of bail on merits.

The court held

The Court held that this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail due to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the specific link between the applicant's business and the financial fraud.

It also directed

The second bail application was rejected.

The Court directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial within six months from the receipt of the order, provided there is no legal impediment.

01Facts

The applicant, Navdhesh Kumar Sahu, owner of "Sahu Mobile," was arrested on September 21, 2025, following a complaint by the Cyber Cell.

¶ 3

Investigations revealed that 27 SIM cards were fraudulently activated using the applicant’s Point of Sale (POS) code (7869872497BSPSAHUMOBILE).

¶ 3, 5

Out of these, 10 SIM cards were linked to online financial fraud, and 6 were specifically utilized to commit fraud amounting to ₹2,06,54,946.21.

¶ 5

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 8151/2025) was rejected on merits on December 9, 2025.

¶ 2

The applicant filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, contending that he was unaware of the illegal acts committed by the co-accused, Surendra Kumar Barman, and that only 3 out of 16 witnesses had been examined since his incarceration.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in a second application based on the grounds of prolonged judicial custody and the examination of only 3 out of 16 witnesses, notwithstanding the prior rejection of bail on merits.

¶ 4, 7

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

¶ 1

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating.

¶ 1

Section 66C of the Information Technology Act for identity theft.

¶ 1

Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023, regarding the fraudulent acquisition of subscriber identity modules.

¶ 3, 5

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

04Reasoning

The Court balanced the applicant's right to liberty against the gravity of the alleged economic offense.

¶ 7

While acknowledging the "new ground" of prolonged custody since September 2025 and the slow progress of the trial (3 of 16 witnesses examined), the Court emphasized the "serious nature of the allegations".

¶ 7

The analysis focused on the fact that the fraudulent SIM cards were activated through the applicant’s own POS code and were directly instrumental in a massive financial fraud exceeding ₹2.06 Crores.

¶ 7

The Court determined that the misuse of the applicant's commercial infrastructure for large-scale criminal activity outweighed the mitigating factors of custody duration and the absence of previous criminal antecedents.

¶ 5, 7

05Holding

¶ 7, 8

The second bail application was rejected.

¶ 8

The Court directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial within six months from the receipt of the order, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶ 9

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF