Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Digital Arrest Cyber Fraud Case, Says Formal Arrest After Chargesheet Makes No Sense When Accused Was Not Arrested During Investigation
Facts
The applicant, Raju Kumar Manjhi, filed a regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation for offences under Sections 120B, 170, 419, 420, 343, 346 and 388 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The prosecution alleged that an organized cyber-fraud network was operating from India and abroad, impersonating law enforcement and courier agency officials. The syndicate allegedly used intimidation, digital surveillance and “digital arrest” to extort money from victims.
One of the victims, Anshu Mittal, was allegedly contacted by persons impersonating FedEx and Mumbai Cyber Crime officials and was digitally confined from 29 December 2023 to 1 January 2024. He was allegedly threatened with serious criminal charges and induced to transfer ₹48,56,275 into two bank accounts, including ₹32,63,275 into the account of M/s Sabir Enterprises.
The charge-sheet alleged that the applicant was connected with access to the internet banking facility of M/s Sabir Enterprises through a mobile number registered in his name. However, the applicant was not arrested during investigation and was taken into custody only after rejection of his bail application post filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance.
Issues
- Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail after filing of the charge-sheet.
- Whether the applicant could be denied bail merely because he had not joined investigation pursuant to two notices.
- Whether further investigation and possible custodial interrogation could be a ground to deny bail after the charge-sheet had already been filed.
- Whether the applicant’s custody was necessary when the evidence was largely documentary and electronic and already seized by the investigating agency.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicant argued that he was not arrested during the entire investigation and was taken into custody only after the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken.
It was submitted that the CBI itself did not consider custodial interrogation necessary during investigation. Therefore, continued custody after filing of the charge-sheet was not justified.
The applicant also relied on the fact that the case substantially rested on documentary and electronic evidence, which was already in the custody of the investigating agency.
It was further submitted that the applicant appeared before the Magistrate pursuant to summons, showing that he was not evading the process of law.
Respondent’s Arguments
The CBI opposed the bail application and contended that the applicant was part of an organized cyber-fraud and money-laundering syndicate.
The agency relied on investigation relating to IP logs, internet banking access, mobile number details, call records, Blinkit logs and residential address verification to connect the applicant with the bank account of M/s Sabir Enterprises.
The CBI also argued that further investigation against the applicant was ongoing and that custodial interrogation may still be required.
It was also pointed out that the applicant had not joined investigation despite two notices.
Analysis of the Law
The Court held that when the investigating agency did not arrest the applicant during the course of investigation, and the charge-sheet had already been filed, the requirement of custody had to be examined carefully.
The Court observed that mere non-joining of investigation pursuant to two notices was not sufficient to deny bail, particularly when the investigating agency could have used coercive measures earlier if the applicant’s presence was genuinely necessary.
The Court also considered that the applicant was not named in the FIR and that the role attributed to him in the charge-sheet was limited and not direct in nature, as recorded by the Court.
The Court emphasized that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial, not to punish him before conviction.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the recent Supreme Court decision in Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., where the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of arresting an accused only after filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance.
The Supreme Court had observed that once investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed, the accused should ordinarily be asked to appear before the concerned court and furnish bail. If custodial interrogation was required, the investigating officer could have arrested the accused during investigation itself.
Relying on this principle, the Delhi High Court held that a formal arrest after filing of the charge-sheet could not be justified merely as a matter of course.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the applicant was never arrested during investigation. He was taken into custody only after the filing of the charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken.
The Court held that the CBI’s argument regarding further investigation and possible custodial interrogation could not, by itself, justify denial of regular bail in the facts of the case.
The Court also considered that the applicant had appeared before the Magistrate after summons were issued. This showed his willingness to submit to the jurisdiction of the court.
Further, the case was largely based on documentary and electronic evidence, which had already been seized and was in the custody of the investigating agency. Therefore, there was little scope for tampering with evidence.
The Court also noted that other co-accused persons, who were attributed comparatively more significant roles, had already been granted bail.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the bail application and directed release of the applicant on regular bail.
The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount. The Court also imposed conditions requiring him not to leave Delhi without permission, surrender his passport, appear before the Court, provide his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer, report to the IO once every month, and not contact witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding the bail application and would not affect the trial.
Case Details
Case: Raju Kumar Manjhi v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 2227/2026
Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date: 6 July 2026
Result: Regular bail granted.
