Prolonged custody is unjustified when investigation makes no concrete effort to trace alleged co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 34/2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station West, Hari Nagar, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that ₹1,40,000 of the complainant’s cheated funds was transferred into the applicant’s bank account. The complainant stated that he had been induced through a person using the name Isha Rajput to invest through a trading app, but could not withdraw the purported profits.

The applicant had been in custody for approximately ten months. The Court had previously sought further investigation into the alleged co-accused, Abhishek and Isha Rajput; the updated status report showed that neither had been apprehended and that significant investigative steps remained outstanding.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in light of his prolonged custody and the status of the investigation.

Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement in a separate Jaipur cyberfraud case justified his continued incarceration in this case.

The prosecution invoked Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The judgment does not cite a specific bail provision, precedent, or separately state a general bail test. Its reasoning proceeds on whether continued detention was justified in the circumstances, including the applicant’s period in custody and the progress of the investigation.

The Court found that, despite approximately ten months of investigation, the police had taken no effective steps to apprehend Abhishek or trace Isha Rajput, had not pursued further lawful action after Bumble failed to respond to notices, and had not obtained relevant conversation screenshots or call logs from the complainant’s phone.

It considered the status report to reflect largely paperwork rather than meaningful investigative progress and concluded that the applicant’s continued incarceration was not justified.

The Court also held that the separate Jaipur case did not warrant further incarceration in this matter.

It clarified that its observations would not prejudice either side and that the trial court must independently assess the matter at the appropriate stage.