Odisha High Court denies bail to accused in ₹6.04-crore cyber-investment fraud case linked to seven complaints against his bank account

On 2 October 2024, the informant, Dr. Saswata Mohanty, was allegedly induced to join a WhatsApp group impersonating “Geojit Financial Services Ltd.” and was promised discounted share trading, IPO investments, and high daily returns.

Relying on these representations, the informant transferred money to various bank accounts and was shown fabricated profit statements.

When withdrawals were attempted, further payments were demanded, resulting in an alleged fraud of ₹6,04,53,000, comprising the informant’s and her relatives’ investments.

CID Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 2 of 2025 was registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

During investigation, the petitioner was arrested.

After rejection of his bail application by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, he approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that ₹1,11,00,000 from the informant’s account was credited to Account No. 121163300001806, belonging to “Bharani Enterprises,” whose proprietor was the petitioner, and that seven complaints were registered against the account across India.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in view of the nature and gravity of the alleged cyber-fraud and the materials collected during investigation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had been granted bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the specific material connecting the accused with the offence, the amount allegedly involved, and the broader circumstances emerging from the investigation.

The Court also applied the principle that parity is not automatic; an accused can claim parity only when he is similarly situated to the co-accused who obtained bail.

The alleged offences included cheating, forgery-related offences, criminal conspiracy/common intention, and computer-related identity theft and cheating under the BNS and the Information Technology Act.

Although the petitioner relied on parity, the Court found that he was not similarly situated with the co-accused who had been granted bail because specific material allegedly connected him to the receipt of ₹1,11,00,000 from the informant’s account.

The relevant account belonged to “Bharani Enterprises,” of which the petitioner was the proprietor, and the mobile number linked to the account stood in his name.

The Court further considered the seven complaints registered throughout India against the account and the alleged diversion of the credited funds.

In light of the alleged total fraud of ₹6,04,53,000, the petitioner’s alleged role, and the seriousness of the accusations, the Court held that bail was not warranted at that stage.

The plea of parity was rejected because the petitioner was not similarly situated with the co-accused.

Accordingly, the bail application was rejected and the BLAPL was disposed of, with a direction to transmit a copy of the order to the court seized of the matter.