Providing bank account and SIM to facilitate cyber fraud for commission disentitles accused to regular bail.

The complainant was induced via Instagram by an individual posing as a coordinator for an OTC trading company to invest money through the "JA Bloc Pro App" software

The complainant deposited approximately ₹60,85,000 into various bank accounts but was unable to withdraw the funds

Investigation revealed that the applicant, Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, opened a current account at IDFC First Bank which received ₹18,00,000 of the defrauded amount via RTGS

Between May 8 and May 29, 2025, the applicant's account saw total credits of ₹99,34,857.73 and near-total withdrawals

The applicant was arrested on November 25, 2025, and charged under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and 66(D) of the IT Act, 2000

An affidavit by the Investigating Officer revealed the applicant's account was linked to 17 other online cyber frauds across multiple states

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

Substantive charges were brought under Section 318(4) of the BNS (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource)

The court's discretion was guided by the gravity of the offense and the systemic nature of cybercrime involving multiple victims across various jurisdictions

The Court evaluated the applicant’s role based on a personal affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police

the investigation showed he recorded a memorandum statement confessing to opening the bank account and obtaining a registered SIM specifically to hand them over to his cousins for use in cyber crimes in exchange for a ₹30,000 commission

The Court noted the high volume of transactions—nearly ₹1 Crore—passing through a newly opened account within a single month

Furthermore, the fact that the applicant's account was flagged in 17 different cyber fraud complaints across states like Haryana, Telangana, Delhi, and Maharashtra suggested a coordinated criminal enterprise rather than an isolated incident of victimization

The Court determined that the applicant's active participation in providing the infrastructure (bank account and ATM) for cyber fraud outweighed the arguments regarding the lack of direct communication with the complainant

The Court held that given the applicant's confessed role in facilitating online cyber fraud by providing his bank account and SIM for a commission, it was not a fit case for the grant of regular bail at this stage

The trial Court was directed to be provided with a certified copy of the order for compliance