In a significant ruling on anticipatory bail, the Jharkhand High Court has underscored the principle that victims of cyber fraud cannot be treated as offenders when they have been allured into providing bank details under false pretenses. The Court granted bail to a housewife accused of offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, holding that she was a victim of circumstances rather than a perpetrator.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kavita Shukla, a 32-year-old housewife from Maharashtra, was accused in Cyber P.S. (Dhanbad) Case No. 49 of 2024 for allegedly facilitating the transfer of Rs. 6,00,000 into her bank account. The case was registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act. The petitioner claimed she was duped by two individuals, Ajay Sharma and Ajay Mishra, who promised her employment and subsequently misused her bank details.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was allegedly allured by Ajay Sharma and Ajay Mishra, who promised employment to her and 17-20 other women
- The petitioner provided her bank account details and changed the mobile link associated with her account as directed
- A sum of Rs. 6,00,000 was credited to her account, which was later withdrawn in Alwar, Rajasthan
- The petitioner filed a complaint with the cyber police station on 07.12.2025 (Annexure-3) upon discovering the fraudulent transaction
- The petitioner has no prior criminal antecedents, as stated in paragraph 17 of the petition
Procedural History
- Cyber P.S. (Dhanbad) Case No. 49 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 319(2), 318(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act
- The petitioner filed Anticipatory Bail Application (A.B.A. No. 1778 of 2026) before the Jharkhand High Court
- The matter was heard on 16.06.2026
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that she was a victim of fraud and had no criminal intent. She contended that she had cooperated with the authorities by filing a complaint upon discovering the fraudulent transaction.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a person who unknowingly facilitates cyber fraud under false pretenses can be denied anticipatory bail solely on the basis of the allegations, particularly when the individual has no criminal antecedents and has reported the fraud to the authorities.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner is a victim of circumstances, having been allured by Ajay Sharma and Ajay Mishra under the false promise of employment
- She provided her bank details and changed the mobile link as directed, without any knowledge of the fraudulent intent
- Upon discovering the Rs. 6,00,000 credit in her account, she immediately filed a complaint with the cyber police station on 07.12.2025
- The petitioner has no criminal antecedents, as disclosed in the petition
- She is a housewife with no history of involvement in criminal activities
For the State
- The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner’s account was used to receive and withdraw Rs. 6,00,000, which prima facie suggests her involvement in the fraud
- The State contended that the allegations were serious and warranted denial of anticipatory bail
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly focusing on the petitioner’s role as a victim of allurement. The Court noted that the petitioner had been promised employment and had unknowingly provided her bank details, which were subsequently misused. The Court observed that Annexure-3, the complaint filed by the petitioner on 07.12.2025, prima facie indicated that she had reported the fraudulent transaction to the authorities.
The Court relied on the principle that anticipatory bail should not be denied to individuals who are victims of circumstances, particularly when they have no criminal antecedents and have cooperated with the investigation. The Court held:
"Considering that the petitioner is said to be a lady and on the allurement of providing employment she has provided bank details to one Ajay Sharma and Ajay Mishra and they have got the mobile link changed with the account of the petitioner and thereafter the amount has been credited which has been withdrawn by another person in the State of Rajasthan. Annexure-3 is a document which prima facie suggests that the said amount was credited and the petitioner has approached the cyber police station about the said credit in the account of the petitioner. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to provide anticipatory bail to the petitioner."
The Court distinguished this case from those where the accused had a clear criminal intent or antecedents, emphasizing that the petitioner’s actions were a result of being misled rather than any deliberate wrongdoing.
The Verdict
The Jharkhand High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application with the following directions:
- The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from 16.06.2026
- Upon surrender or arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each
- The bail is subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- The bail is granted in connection with Cyber P.S. (Dhanbad) Case No. 49 of 2024
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victims of Cyber Fraud Cannot Be Treated as Offenders
- Practitioners must argue that individuals who unknowingly facilitate cyber fraud under false pretenses should not be denied anticipatory bail solely based on allegations
- Courts are likely to consider whether the accused reported the fraud to authorities as a mitigating factor in bail applications
- The ruling reinforces that victims of allurement or coercion are entitled to the benefit of doubt in criminal proceedings
Prima Facie Evidence of Reporting Fraud is Crucial
- The judgment highlights the importance of documentary evidence, such as complaints filed with authorities, in establishing the accused’s lack of criminal intent
- Practitioners should ensure that Annexure-3 or similar documents are presented to demonstrate the accused’s cooperation with the investigation
- Courts may distinguish cases where the accused failed to report fraudulent transactions promptly
Anticipatory Bail Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- The ruling provides clarity on the application of Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly in cases involving cyber fraud
- Practitioners can cite this judgment to argue that anticipatory bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence when the accused is a victim of circumstances
