Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused alleged to have facilitated a large-scale cyber investment fraud by providing his bank account for illegal transactions. The Court held that once investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed, continued incarceration serves no useful purpose, especially when the case is based on documentary evidence and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Emphasising parity and the principle against pre-trial punishment, the Court ordered release on bail subject to stringent conditions .
Facts
The case arose from an FIR registered by the Special Cell, Delhi, alleging a sophisticated cyber fraud in which victims were lured into investing money under the guise of “QIB trading.” The fraud was allegedly executed through a WhatsApp group titled “A5 Wealth Freedom” and a mobile application named “GALAD ARAB.” Acting on inducements and false assurances, the complainant transferred substantial sums of money to various bank accounts linked to the scam.
During investigation, it was revealed that ₹64 lakhs out of the total cheated amount of more than ₹4 crores had been credited to the bank account of a proprietorship firm. The prosecution alleged that the accused had opened this account and knowingly allowed it to be used for routing proceeds of cybercrime in exchange for financial benefits. The accused was arrested in April 2025 and remained in judicial custody thereafter .
Issues
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the accused was entitled to regular bail despite serious allegations of economic fraud involving a large amount of money. The Court was required to assess whether continued custody was necessary after filing of the chargesheet, whether there existed a risk of tampering with evidence, and whether the principle of parity applied, given that the accused had been granted bail in a similar case by another court.
Petitioner’s arguments
The accused contended that he had been falsely implicated and lacked any mens rea to participate in the alleged cyber fraud. It was argued that he had merely shared his bank account details with a friend on the representation that the account was required for legitimate business purposes. According to the petitioner, he was unaware that the account would be misused for fraudulent activities and had no technical expertise to understand the nature of the cyber operations involved. He emphasised that investigation qua him was complete and the chargesheet had already been filed, rendering further custody unnecessary.
The petitioner also sought parity, pointing out that he had been granted regular bail by a Sessions Court in Gurugram in another FIR involving identical allegations of lending his bank account for fraudulent transfers. Additionally, it was urged that he was the sole earning member of his family and prolonged incarceration had caused severe financial hardship, including default on loans and disruption of his children’s education .
Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the accused had played a deliberate and active role in the offence by opening and providing a bank account for use in cybercrime. It was highlighted that the mobile number linked to the account belonged to the accused’s wife, and his presence with co-accused persons at a hotel during the relevant period was corroborated through call detail records and entry registers. The prosecution stressed the gravity of the offence, noting that it involved an organised cyber fraud of more than ₹4 crores, with ₹64 lakhs directly traceable to the accused’s account, warranting denial of bail.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined settled principles governing grant of bail, particularly in cases of economic offences. While acknowledging that economic frauds are serious and impact public confidence, the Court reiterated that bail cannot be denied as a matter of punishment. Once investigation is complete and evidence is primarily documentary, the need for custodial detention diminishes. The Court also underscored that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 requires courts to balance societal interests with the individual’s right against prolonged pre-trial incarceration.
Precedent analysis
Though no specific precedent was cited in detail, the Court’s approach is consistent with established jurisprudence that filing of a chargesheet and absence of custodial requirements weigh heavily in favour of bail. Courts have repeatedly held that prolonged detention pending trial, especially when trials are likely to be delayed, amounts to impermissible pre-trial punishment. The principle of parity has also been recognised as a relevant consideration in bail matters.
Court’s reasoning
The High Court noted that the accused had been in custody since April 2025 and that investigation had concluded with the filing of the chargesheet in June 2025. The allegations against him were largely documentary, and all relevant bank records and digital material had already been seized by the investigating agency. Consequently, the possibility of tampering with evidence was minimal.
The Court also found merit in the plea of parity, observing that the accused had been granted bail in a similar case involving identical allegations by a competent court. Taking into account the likely delay in conclusion of trial and the settled principle that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment, the Court held that continued incarceration would be unjustified .
Conclusion
Allowing the bail application, the Delhi High Court directed that the accused be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount. The Court imposed strict conditions, including surrender of passport, restriction on foreign travel, regular appearance before the trial court, non-contact with witnesses, and a prohibition on engaging in similar criminal activity. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not influence the trial on merits .
Implications
This ruling reinforces the principle that even in serious cyber and economic offences, bail must be assessed on objective parameters such as stage of investigation, nature of evidence, and duration of custody. The judgment highlights judicial reluctance to permit indefinite pre-trial incarceration once the prosecution has completed its investigation. For cybercrime prosecutions, it signals that documentary nature of evidence and parity with co-accused remain crucial factors in bail adjudication.
Case law references
- Bail jurisprudence in economic offences
Courts have consistently held that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet reduce the necessity for custodial detention, and prolonged incarceration pending trial amounts to pre-trial punishment.
FAQs
1. Can bail be granted in large cyber fraud cases involving crores of rupees?
Yes. Courts may grant bail if investigation is complete, evidence is documentary, and continued custody is unnecessary.
2. Does filing of a chargesheet favour grant of bail?
Yes. Once the chargesheet is filed, custodial interrogation is ordinarily no longer required.
3. What is the principle of parity in bail matters?
Parity means that an accused should receive similar treatment as a co-accused or in similar cases, unless distinguishing circumstances exist.
