Seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify continued custody absent sufficient evidence linking the accused to the offence.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 36/2026, registered at Police Station Special Cell for alleged offences under Sections 308, 318(4), 319 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant alleged that persons impersonating police officers subjected him to a “digital arrest” and induced him to transfer ₹1,04,49,999 to mule accounts.

Of that sum, ₹14,00,000 was credited to an account held by M/s Shri Gupta Trading Company; the prosecution alleged that banking credentials were passed through co-accused persons to the applicant.

The applicant had been in custody since 1 July 2026 and argued that the case against him rested on co-accused disclosure statements.

The State relied additionally on a signed cheque and the applicant’s alleged membership in Telegram groups involved in circulating mule accounts.

The Court considered the bail application on the status report and submissions of counsel and the investigating officer.

Whether the material collected by the prosecution sufficiently connected the applicant to the alleged offences to justify continued detention pending trial.

Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences, in the circumstances of this case, warranted refusal of regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 308, 318(4), 319 and 340 of the BNS.

The Court applied the bail principle that the seriousness of an allegation, by itself, is insufficient to determine bail; the Court must also examine whether sufficient evidence connects the accused to the alleged offence.

No precedent or separate statutory test for bail was cited in the judgment.

Although the alleged digital arrest and transfer of a substantial sum were serious, the applicant was not alleged to have impersonated a police officer or held the first- or second-layer mule account.

The Court noted there was no evidence that he received money for sharing the banking credentials.

The investigation had not established the legal constitution or ownership of the first-layer beneficiary account, and its alleged signatory, Sanju, had not been arrested.

Further, the screenshot relied on by the prosecution was not shown to have been taken from the applicant’s phone, leaving the electronic evidence unable, prima facie, to connect him to the offence.

In light of these evidentiary gaps, the Court found no reason to continue depriving the applicant of his liberty, while cautioning that its observations were confined to the bail stage.

It directed that a copy of the order be sent immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent for communication to the applicant.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail determination and would not bind the trial court at the stage of framing charge or final decision.