Prima facie cyber-fraud conspiracy justified rejecting bail, notwithstanding two applicants’ clean antecedents.

The applicants—Kshitij Singh Khairwar, Anup Kumar Chaubey and Shivam Painkra—filed their first applications for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 649/2025 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja, for offences under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 111 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, on 1 November 2025, co-accused Anish Giri fraudulently obtained ₹99,999 through the complainant’s Choice Centre by means of a forged transaction.

When the complainant visited IndusInd Bank on 7 November 2025, he was informed that the account had been blocked owing to the fraudulent transaction.

During investigation, the present applicants were allegedly found involved in the offence, arrested, and subsequently charge-sheeted.

The applicants asserted false implication, relied on their status as students, and submitted that co-accused Anish Giri and Varsha Singh had already been granted bail.

Kshitij Singh also relied on his ongoing treatment for an eye ailment.

Kshitij and Shivam claimed no criminal antecedents, whereas Anup Chaubey was stated to have five criminal antecedents, two of which had resulted in bail orders in his favour.

The applicants further submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicants had conspired to commit cyber fraud and contending that Anup Chaubey was a habitual offender because of his antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the allegations under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 111 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to the alleged fraudulent transaction, handling or receipt of proceeds, criminal conspiracy or organised criminal conduct, and common criminal liability, as applicable to the prosecution case.

In deciding bail, the Court assessed the prima facie nature of the accusation, the gravity of the alleged offence, the applicants’ alleged role, their connection with one another, and the criminal antecedents of one applicant.

The Court found that the applicants were prima facie alleged to have received money fraudulently from the complainant’s bank account and to have acted in connivance with one another in executing the alleged cyber-fraud scheme.

Although Kshitij and Shivam had no criminal antecedents and all applicants relied on their student status, these circumstances did not outweigh the nature and gravity of the allegations or the prosecution’s assertion of a concerted conspiracy.

The Court also considered that Anup Chaubey had several pending criminal antecedents, notwithstanding the grant of bail to him in two other cases, and treated those antecedents as relevant to the assessment of his entitlement to bail.

The Court therefore declined to grant bail, expressly without making any final observation on the merits of the prosecution case.

The rejection was based principally on the prima facie allegations of fraudulent receipt of funds, the alleged conspiracy and coordinated involvement of the applicants, the gravity of the offences, and, in Anup Chaubey’s case, his criminal antecedents.

No finding on the ultimate merits of the prosecution case was recorded.