Regular bail may be refused where evidence indicates organised cyber fraud and sharing of crime proceeds.

The applicant, Sanjay Meena, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 02/2026 registered at Police Station Cyber Cell, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 318(4), 308(6) and 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that fraudsters impersonated officials of TRAI, the police and other investigative agencies, falsely informed the complainant that a mobile number issued in his name was being misused, and induced him to transfer Rs. 36,97,117 through multiple UPI transactions on the pretext of verification and investigation.

The applicant claimed false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, implication primarily on the basis of co-accused memorandum statements, filing of the charge-sheet, prolonged incarceration since 22 April 2026, and likely delay in trial.

The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicant was part of the cyber-fraud group, participated in receiving and distributing the cheated amount, and shared in the proceeds of crime.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the applicant’s period of custody.

Whether the grant of bail to co-accused Aarti Rajput entitled the applicant to bail on the ground of parity.

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

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the prima facie material in the case diary, the applicant’s alleged role, the possibility of his participation in an organised cyber-fraud scheme, and the surrounding circumstances of the investigation.

The offences alleged were under Sections 318(4), 308(6) and 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.

No specific judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the allegations concerned a serious and organised cyber-fraud involving digital arrest tactics, impersonation of public officials, and cheating of the complainant of Rs. 36,97,117.

The case diary allegedly contained memorandum statements, recoveries of electronic devices, and material indicating that the applicant received and shared part of the proceeds of crime, thereby disclosing his prima facie involvement.

Although the applicant relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, length of custody, and the bail granted to a co-accused, the Court accepted the State’s distinction that Aarti Rajput had been granted bail on account of her status as a woman with a minor child, while another co-accused’s bail application had been rejected.

Considering the gravity of the alleged cyber-fraud and the prima facie material against the applicant, the Court held that the case was not fit for grant of bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

It held that, considering the seriousness of the organised cyber-fraud, the substantial amount allegedly misappropriated, the electronic-device recoveries, the memorandum statements, and the alleged sharing of the crime proceeds, the applicant was not entitled to regular bail.

The first bail application of Sanjay Meena under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was accordingly rejected.