Facts
The five petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Cyber Crime and Economic Offence, Sundargarh P.S. Case No. 04 of 2026, arising from G.R. Case No. 591 of 2026.
Source reference: p.2, para.2The case concerned alleged offences under Sections 317(2), 318(2), 323, 111(3), 111(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Source reference: p.2, para.2Krushna Kumbhar and Ranjan Khilari allegedly established “RRK Public Bazaar Pvt. Ltd.” and opened current accounts with Bank of Baroda and Axis Bank.
Source reference: pp.3–5, paras.3.1–3.2The Axis Bank account allegedly received ₹6,53,43,924.64 and diverted ₹6,50,42,181.24 through online banking channels between 1 March 2025 and 28 February 2026.
Source reference: pp.3–5, paras.3.1–3.2The account was linked with 149 cyber-crime complaints across India.
Source reference: pp.3–5, paras.3.1–3.2After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Bail applications before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, were unsuccessful, leading to the present applications before the High Court.
Source reference: p.6, para.3.2Issues
Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the allegations, the amount allegedly transacted, the number of cyber-crime complaints, and their respective roles.
Source reference: pp.7–9, paras.5–7Whether the alleged principal role of Basant Singh, including the use of bank credentials and the APK application for generation and transmission of OTPs, justified denial of bail notwithstanding completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.
Source reference: pp.5–6, 9, paras.3.1–3.2, 6–7Law Applied
The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which confers jurisdiction on the High Court to consider and grant bail.
Source reference: p.2, para.2The alleged offences arose under Sections 317(2), 318(2), 323, 111(3), 111(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning dishonest or fraudulent conduct, conspiracy/common liability, identity theft and cheating by personation using computer resources.
Source reference: p.2, para.2The Court applied the established bail principle that entitlement to bail depends on an assessment of the available material, the nature and gravity of the accusations, the individual role attributed to each accused, and the likelihood of the accused’s involvement being supported by direct or substantial evidence.
Source reference: no citationNo judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court acknowledged the substantial alleged online transactions of ₹6,50,42,181.24 and the linkage of the Axis Bank account with 149 cyber-crime complaints.
Source reference: p.7, para.5However, it assessed each petitioner’s role separately.
Source reference: p.7, para.5Krushna Kumbhar and Ranjan Khilari were alleged to have operated the company account, but the material indicated that they received ₹2,20,000 from Subash Raul and were introduced to Basant Singh, who allegedly obtained the account credentials in return for commission.
Source reference: pp.7–8, para.5Subash Raul was primarily alleged to have made the introduction, while S.K. Alamgir was alleged to have arranged flight tickets and attended a meeting at Digha.
Source reference: p.8, para.5The Court found no direct evidence against these four petitioners of personally committing the online financial fraud.
Source reference: p.9, para.7In contrast, the material against Basant Singh was substantially stronger: his mobile phone allegedly contained records of 21 current accounts connected with 416 cyber-crime complaints, and he was specifically alleged to have used “Super-SMS.apk” to generate OTPs and facilitate fraudulent transactions.
Source reference: pp.5–6, 9, paras.3.1–3.2, 6His previous conviction in a case involving conspiracy, cheating, forgery and uranium smuggling was also taken into account.
Source reference: p.9, para.6On this comparative assessment of the alleged roles and available evidence, the Court granted bail to the first four petitioners but declined bail to Basant Singh.
Source reference: p.9, para.7Holding
The High Court rejected the bail application of Basant Singh @ Singh Sir @ Big Boss in BLAPL No. 6959 of 2026.
It allowed the applications of Krushna Kumbhar @ Kishan, Ranjan Khilari @ Sunil, S.K. Alamgir and Subash Chandra Raul @ Raulo in BLAPL Nos. 5178, 5204, 6445 and 6799 of 2026, respectively.
Source reference: p.10, para.8The four petitioners were directed to be released on bail on furnishing bonds of ₹50,000 each with one solvent surety for the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the court concerned and such further conditions as that court considered appropriate.
Source reference: p.10, para.8The applications were accordingly disposed of, and a soft copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the concerned court and jail authorities.
Source reference: p.10, para.9Acts & Sections Cited
6 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20235
Original Court PDF
KRUSHNA KUMBHAR @ KISHANvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
