Regular bail granted where prolonged custody, completed investigation, no antecedents, and likely trial delay favored release.

The applicants, Irfan Ansari and Muftiyaaj Ansari, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 04/2026 registered at Cyber Cell Police Station, Mahasamund, for offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, after placing an online order for four-wheel rims through the BOODMO website, was contacted by a person posing as a customer-care executive. On the pretext of processing a refund, the caller induced him to download the “HelpDesk Host” application, following which the complainant’s mobile phone was allegedly hacked. Multiple online transactions thereafter resulted in the fraudulent withdrawal of ₹2,49,988 from his SBI account.

During investigation, the prosecution collected call-detail records, subscriber details, Aadhaar-linked KYC records, IP-address information, linked mobile-number and email details, and bank-transaction records, which allegedly indicated the applicants’ involvement.

The applicants contended that they had been falsely implicated, that no money was recovered from them or their bank accounts, and that the prosecution case rested primarily on electronic evidence. They had remained in custody since 4 April 2026, investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation?

Whether the applicants’ clean criminal antecedents, period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and likelihood of delay in trial justified release on bail?

Whether parity with co-accused Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari, who had already been granted bail, supported the applicants’ release?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The prosecution allegations concerned Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating respectively to the alleged cheating and misuse of electronic identity or computer resources.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, the applicants’ criminal antecedents, the period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the anticipated duration of trial, and the principle of parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

The Court also directed compliance with statutory and procedural safeguards concerning attendance, non-adjournment, personal appearance, and consequences of misuse of bail.

The Court treated the applicants’ alleged involvement, based on CDRs, IP information, KYC records, and other electronic material, as matters to be tested at trial rather than as conclusive grounds for continued detention.

It noted that no criminal antecedents had been reported, the applicants had been in custody since 4 April 2026, the investigation had concluded, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Since the trial was likely to take considerable time, continued incarceration was not considered necessary at the bail stage.

The Court further relied on parity because co-accused Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari had already been granted bail in a connected matter.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court therefore found the case suitable for grant of regular bail.

Their release was made subject to conditions requiring them not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court, to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail or non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Court for compliance.