COURT’S DECISION
The High Court granted regular bail to the applicant accused in connection with a large-scale cyber fraud case involving alleged cheating of ₹45,00,000. Despite allegations of involvement in a cybercrime syndicate and procurement/sale of bank accounts and SIM cards used for fraudulent transactions, the Court found that the investigation against the applicant was substantially complete, the applicant had been in custody for 10 months, and the charge sheet insofar as it concerned him had already been filed.
The Court held that the key aspects of the fraud — particularly the remaining ₹44,90,000, the origin of the online inducement, and the identity of the foreign operator “Anita” — remained completely uninvestigated, and continuing custody of the applicant would not advance the investigation.
Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including surrender of passport, regular appearance in court, and non-interference with witnesses.
FACTS
The case arose out of a complaint filed by a victim alleging he was defrauded of approximately ₹45 lakh through an online gold trading scam. He was allegedly contacted by a woman introducing herself as a gold analyst associated with the World Gold Council and induced to invest on a platform named “Malabar,” which was presented as legitimate and profitable.
Under this inducement, the victim transferred multiple sums between April and June 2023 into seven different bank accounts spread across various States. These accounts were held in the names of entities such as Autonome, Lucky Steel Fabrication, Space Reality, and others. When no returns were received, the victim lodged the present FIR.
During investigation, the first transaction for ₹10,000 was traced to a bank account of a firm called Autonome, operated by a co-accused. The money trail revealed that the SIM card and bank details of this account were allegedly passed through several individuals, eventually reaching the present applicant, who was arrested on 13.01.2025. The prosecution alleged the applicant later sold the account and SIM card to an unidentified person named “Abbas” for ₹80,000.
Call detail records suggested the applicant remained in contact with the SIM card even after the purported sale. Suspicious transactions of around ₹25 lakh were found in his bank account. The applicant had two previous cases of cybercrime registered in Jaipur, though he had already secured bail in those matters.
ISSUES
- Whether the nature of allegations and the applicant’s alleged role in a cyber fraud syndicate justified continued custody.
- Whether serious gaps and inconsistencies in the investigation weakened the prosecution case against the applicant.
- Whether the investigation, as it pertained to the applicant, was complete and thus enabled bail.
- Whether previous similar FIRs against the applicant could bar grant of bail.
- Whether prolonged incarceration in an offence triable by a Magistrate is justified when critical aspects of the case remain uninvestigated.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated based solely on the disclosure of another accused who himself was directly involved in creating the bank account of Autonome. He stated that the real perpetrators — the operators of the WhatsApp account and email belonging to “Anita/Fan Annie” — had not been traced or investigated. He asserted that while the FIR referred to a fraud of ₹45 lakh, the investigation against him was restricted to a single transaction of ₹10,000, which he had no involvement in.
It was further contended that the co-accused whose account received the money had already been granted bail after refunding the ₹10,000. The applicant emphasised that the prosecution had shown no forensic, digital or financial trail connecting him to the fraud. He submitted that the charge sheet had been filed after 10 months of custody and that no further recovery or interrogation relating to him was pending.
He also highlighted that the prosecution had not traced the IP address, mobile number, or digital identity of the alleged mastermind “Anita,” nor made any efforts to investigate the remaining ₹44,90,000. Thus, his continued custody was unnecessary and disproportionate.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The prosecution argued that the applicant was a central member of a cybercrime syndicate enabling large-scale financial fraud by procuring, operating, and selling bank accounts and SIM cards used for receiving fraudulent funds. They maintained that the applicant procured the relevant bank account and SIM from an intermediary and sold them to another person for ₹80,000, receiving an advance of ₹10,000 which he transferred to a different co-accused.
Call data analysis indicated that the applicant continued to communicate through the same SIM card after the alleged sale, showing deep involvement. The prosecution submitted that he failed to cooperate, withheld information about “Abbas,” and was involved in two other cybercrime cases, which indicated habitual criminality.
Given the sophisticated nature of the offence and the financial impact on the complainant, the prosecution opposed bail.
ANALYSIS OF THE LAW
The Court examined the principles governing bail in economic offences, the relevance of prolonged custody, and the status of the investigation.
It noted that economic offences require a balanced approach: while the gravity of allegations is relevant, bail cannot be denied indefinitely once the investigation against the particular accused is substantially complete.
The Court relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the accused is not required for further custodial interrogation and where the case is triable by a Magistrate.
It observed that the co-accused whose account actually received the ₹10,000 had already been granted bail. The Court was concerned with the investigative lapses pointed out by the Trial Court, particularly the failure to:
- investigate the mobile number and identity of the mastermind “Anita,”
- investigate the remaining ₹44,90,000,
- analyze call records or digital footprints of several accused, and
- examine why a key intermediary was not arrayed as an accused.
In light of these glaring lapses, the Court held continued custody unjustified.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
Though the judgment does not explicitly cite external case law, the reasoning aligns with the following well-established principles:
Principle: Bail Should Not Be Denied When Investigation Is Complete
Courts consistently hold that if charge sheet is filed and no further custodial interrogation is required, continued incarceration is unwarranted.
Applied Here: Investigation against the applicant was complete.
Principle: Prolonged Custody in Magistrate-Triable Cases is Unjustified
Where offences are triable by Magistrates and punishment is limited, denial of bail becomes disproportionate.
Applied Here: The Court considered that the matter was triable by a Magistrate.
Principle: Co-Accused Parity Matters
If a co-accused with greater direct involvement is granted bail, others should generally receive similar treatment.
Applied Here: The co-accused whose account received the ₹10,000 had already secured bail.
COURT’S REASONING
The Court held that although the allegations were serious, the applicant’s continued custody served no investigative purpose, particularly given that the prosecution had failed to investigate the central elements of the alleged fraud.
It emphasised that:
- the applicant had already spent 10 months in jail,
- no recovery was pending,
- the key mastermind remained unidentified,
- the applicant was arrested only in relation to ₹10,000 out of ₹45 lakh, and
- the co-accused with direct involvement had been granted bail.
Therefore, further incarceration would be neither useful nor justified.
CONCLUSION
The High Court allowed the bail application, directing release of the applicant upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety. The Court imposed standard bail conditions and clarified that its observations shall not influence the Trial Court on merits.
IMPLICATIONS
- Reinforces judicial scrutiny of incomplete investigations in cybercrime matters.
- Affirms that bail cannot be withheld indefinitely in economic offences once investigation is substantially complete.
- Highlights the need for diligent digital investigation in cyber fraud cases.
- Clarifies that custodial interrogation must be justified, not assumed.
- Strengthens principles of parity and proportionality in bail jurisprudence.
FAQs
1. Can an accused get bail in a cyber fraud case involving large amounts?
Yes, if investigation is complete and further custody serves no purpose, courts may grant bail even in high-value frauds.
2. Does involvement in other cybercrime FIRs prevent bail?
Not automatically. Prior FIRs may be considered but do not bar bail if current investigation is complete.
3. Is bail likely when the main mastermind is not traced?
Yes. Courts will not deny bail to an accused merely because the main offender remains unidentified.
