Prolonged custody and likely trial delay justified bail after charge-sheet despite alleged cyber-fraud involvement.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 322/2025 registered at Police Station Kondagaon for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 111(2), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that Central Bank of India Account No. 5660383552, belonging to Lokeshwar Hirwani, was used to receive and transfer proceeds of cyber fraud amounting to approximately Rs. 72,09,424, with 41 cyber-fraud complaints linked to the account.

During investigation, the account holders allegedly stated that their passbooks, cheque books and internet-banking credentials had been handed over to co-accused persons.

The investigating officer relied on the memorandum statements of co-accused Ravikant Sahu and Chandra Shekhar Nayak, who allegedly implicated the applicant as the person who induced individuals to open bank accounts and facilitated their use for cyber-fraud transactions.

The applicant was formally arrested in the present case on 19 December 2025 while he was already in custody in two other cases.

He contended that he was not named in the FIR, no recovery had been made from him in the present case, and that the prosecution case rested principally on co-accused statements and seizures made in another case.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had remained in custody since 19 December 2025.

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

The offences alleged included provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to handling or dealing with property derived from criminal activity, cheating, organised criminal activity and common liability, as well as Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act concerning cheating by personation using a computer resource or communication device.

Bail was granted subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court considered the investigating officer’s affidavit, which attributed the applicant’s involvement primarily through the memorandum statements of co-accused persons and the alleged account-opening and fund-transfer arrangement.

However, the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the immediate need for custodial interrogation.

The Court also took into account that the applicant had been in custody since 19 December 2025, that one of his two criminal antecedents had ended in acquittal, that he was on bail in the other case, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these factors against the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to stringent conditions ensuring his attendance and cooperation with the trial.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings arising from any proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.