Regular bail granted in cyber fraud case citing filed charge-sheet and lack of criminal antecedents.

The applicants filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail for offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66(D) of the I.T. Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants, in connivance with others, committed online fraud involving Rs. 50,00,000/- from the complainant.

Investigation revealed that Applicant No. 1 (Arvind Kumar) allegedly used a third party's bank account (Nitesh Kumar) to receive cyber fraud proceeds, while Applicant No. 2 (Vidya Kumar) acted as an associate.

Items seized included a mobile phone, an ATM card, a PAN card, and a total of Rs. 1,600/- in cash from both applicants.

The applicants have been in custody since 22.12.2025, and the charge-sheet has been filed.

Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering their detention period, the nature of evidence, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant regular bail.

Section 318(4) of the BNS (punishment for cheating).

Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act (punishment for cheating by personation using computer resources).

Sections 209, 269, 351, and 84 of the BNSS/BNS regarding the conduct of the accused during trial.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations against the actual material evidence recovered.

It noted that while the alleged fraud amounted to Rs. 50,00,000/-, the actual seizures from the applicants were minimal, consisting of only small amounts of cash (Rs. 550 and Rs. 1,050), one mobile phone, and an ATM card belonging to a third party.

The Court emphasized that the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, signifying the completion of the primary investigation.

Given that the applicants had been detained since December 2025 and the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time, the Court reasoned that continued incarceration was not warranted.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicants must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally at key trial stages (framing of charges, recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS), and must comply with court proclamations or face proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS.

The trial court was authorized to treat any breach of these conditions as an abuse of the liberty of bail.