P&H HC Bails Two Accused In ₹53.75-Lakh Digital-Arrest Case, Denies Bail To Third Whose Account Received ₹4.5 Lakh

In brief

The question

Whether Rajat Sharma and Manoj should be released on regular bail where no alleged proceeds were traced to their accounts and their alleged involvement was based primarily on co-accused disclosure statements.

The court held

The Court allowed the regular-bail petitions of Rajat Sharma and Manoj, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate, unless required in another case.

It also directed

It dismissed Gurwinder Singh’s petition, finding no ground for regular bail in light of the alleged ₹4.5 lakh credit to his account.

01Facts

The three petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in FIR No. 104 dated 22 March 2025, concerning an alleged digital-arrest cyber fraud of ₹53.75 lakh.

¶ 2–3

The prosecution alleged that Rajat Sharma and Manoj received commission for arranging bank accounts, but no part of the defrauded sum was traced to their accounts; their alleged involvement rested primarily on co-accused disclosure statements.

¶ 5–6

By contrast, ₹4.5 lakh was allegedly credited to Gurwinder Singh’s bank account.

¶ 5–6

The Court also noted that three accused, including Rajat Sharma, had received bail in a separate cyber-fraud FIR.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether Rajat Sharma and Manoj should be released on regular bail where no alleged proceeds were traced to their accounts and their alleged involvement was based primarily on co-accused disclosure statements.

¶ 5–7

ii.Whether Gurwinder Singh should be released on regular bail where ₹4.5 lakh of the alleged proceeds was credited to his bank account, notwithstanding his explanation that he lacked knowledge of the alleged scheme.

¶ 6, 8–10

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the Court to consider regular-bail applications.

¶ 2

The Court assessed the petitioners’ respective roles, the material relied on by the prosecution, the presence or absence of a financial trail, and whether further detention was warranted in the circumstances.

¶ 7–10

The alleged offences included provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and, in Gurwinder Singh’s case, Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000; these were the charges under consideration, rather than separate legal tests for bail.

¶ 2

Provisions in the judgment · 18 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 3 Section 61 Section 308 Section 318 Section 319 Section 336 Section 338 Section 340

Indian Penal Code, 1860 9 provisions

Section 34 Section 383 Section 384 Section 416 Section 419 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

04Reasoning

For Rajat Sharma and Manoj, the absence of any alleged fraud proceeds in their accounts, coupled with reliance primarily on co-accused disclosure statements, led the Court to conclude that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

¶ 7

The allegation that they stayed with other accused at a hotel required proof at trial and, without a direct financial trail, did not justify continued detention.

¶ 7

Gurwinder Singh stood on a different footing because ₹4.5 lakh was allegedly credited to his account.

¶ 8–9

The Court considered his explanation that a co-accused had arranged the account and that he was unaware of the scheme insufficient, at the bail stage, to displace the prosecution allegation; his knowledge and complicity were matters for trial.

¶ 8–9