Substantial Recovery of Banking Instruments Corroborating Co-Accused Statements Justifies Denial of Bail in Cyber-Crime Conspiracy.

The applicant, Savinder, sought regular bail following his arrest on December 12, 2025, in connection with FIR No. 99/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was a key conspirator in an organized cyber-crime syndicate operating "mule bank accounts" in Delhi.

The investigation began after a bank account in the name of one Sudhakar was linked to four National Cyber-Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) complaints.

Sudhakar and a co-accused, Sanjeet @ Michael, both implicated the applicant as the person directing their activities and to whom they handed over bank kits for a commission.

During a raid at the applicant's residence, police recovered 13 SIM cards, 36 debit cards, 33 cheque books, and other banking instruments.

A chargesheet has been filed, and the matter is at the stage of framing charges.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

Substantive charges were invoked under Sections 112 (Petty organized crime), 317(2) (Stolen property), and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [BNS].

The principle that while the statement of a co-accused requires corroboration, substantial physical recovery of incriminating material (banking instruments) acts as a significant factor in evaluating the gravity of the offence and the necessity of continued custody.

The Court weighed the applicant’s argument—that the custody was no longer required following the filing of the chargesheet and that the evidence relied upon statements of co-accused—against the gravity of the recoveries made from the applicant's residence.

Justice Prateek Jalan noted that the allegations involve serious online criminal activities targeting vulnerable populations.

The court found that the recovery of "a very large number of banking instruments" (including 36 debit cards and 33 cheque books) from the applicant's possession corroborated the disclosure statements of the co-accused.

The court rejected the applicant's challenge to the integrity of the seizure at this stage, holding that inconsistencies in timing or documentation are matters for the Trial Court during the framing of charges or trial.

The nexus between the recovered instruments and numerous NCRP complaints across different states further militated against the grant of bail.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail adjudication and do not constitute an opinion on the final merits of the case. Application dismissed.