Regular bail denied where accused allegedly received most fraud proceeds and investigation remains ongoing.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), in FIR No. 345/2024, registered for offences under Sections 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The complainant alleged that he was induced to transfer ₹1.15 crore in connection with purported investment and trading activity.

The State submitted that approximately ₹1.04 crore was received in two bank accounts belonging to the petitioner, who had withdrawn ₹60 lakh and transferred the remaining funds to other accounts; the amount was yet to be recovered.

The State also reported that the petitioner was arrested in another case involving a similar modus operandi, the co-accused in this case remained absconding, and investigation was ongoing.

The petitioner, in custody since 10 December 2025, said he had lent his bank account to a co-accused and that the receipts related to his property business.

His earlier bail application had been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the alleged receipt and use of the complainant’s funds, the ongoing investigation, and the status of the co-accused.

2. Whether the petitioner’s period of custody—approximately ten months—warranted release on the ground of prolonged incarceration.

The application was made under Section 483 BNSS, which was the statutory basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The FIR invoked Sections 420, 120B and 34 IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Court noted that the offence under Section 420 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term extending up to seven years.

The judgment cited no precedent or elaborated general bail test; it assessed the application by reference to the allegations, the investigation’s status, and the petitioner’s period of custody.

The Court treated the petitioner’s receipt of approximately ₹1.04 crore—most of the alleged ₹1.15 crore loss—and the State’s assertion that he had withdrawn ₹60 lakh and used the funds for personal purposes as significant circumstances against bail.

It rejected the explanation that the petitioner had merely lent his account to a co-accused and noted that the alleged proceeds remained unrecovered, investigation was continuing, and the other accused had not been apprehended.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s alleged involvement in a similar case.

It held that custody of approximately ten months did not, in the circumstances, justify release for prolonged incarceration, particularly given the maximum seven-year term under Section 420 IPC.

It dismissed the bail application and clarified that its observations were confined to the bail determination and would not prejudice the merits of the case.