Regular Bail Denied for Cyber Fraud Involving Habitual Offender Within Organized Criminal Syndicate

The applicant, Chandrakant Nishad, was arrested on 24.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 437/2025 involving organized cyber fraud

Investigations by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and the Raigarh Cyber Cell revealed that a bank account held by the applicant with ESAF Small Finance Bank received Rs. 38,400/- directly from a complainant’s defrauded funds

The applicant sought regular bail, contending he was a passive account holder with no knowledge of the fraud and noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed

The State opposed the bail, presenting a personal affidavit from the Investigating Officer alleging that the applicant was an active participant in a criminal syndicate and highlighting his five criminal antecedents, including a conviction under the POCSO Act

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the alleged cyber fraud and his criminal history

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(3), and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, relating to stolen property and cheating

The court also applied established judicial principles for bail, which require weighing the gravity of the offense, the strength of the evidence (including digital and banking trails), the potential for the accused to abscond or tamper with evidence, and the relevance of the accused's criminal antecedents in determining "habitual offender" status

The Court found that the applicant was not a mere passive account holder but an active beneficiary and participant in an organized cyber fraud racket

This determination was based on the Investigating Officer's affidavit and digital evidence showing funds were traced directly from the victim to the applicant's account

The Court emphasized the "organized nature of the crime" and the systematic modus operandi used to cheat the public

Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the applicant's criminal history, noting five prior cases and a specific conviction under the POCSO Act, which classified him as a habitual offender

It reasoned that releasing the applicant would pose a risk of him absconding, tampering with prosecution evidence, or engaging in further cyber offenses, thereby harming society and the integrity of the trial

The bail application of Chandrakant Nishad was rejected

The Court granted liberty to the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously