The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that knowingly providing banking infrastructure for cyber fraud - even without direct participation in deception - constitutes a prima facie offence warranting denial of regular bail. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s growing intolerance for passive complicity in large-scale digital financial crimes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Akash Indarlal Turshani, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 305/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur. The prosecution alleges a coordinated cyber fraud scheme in which the complainant was deceived into transferring Rs. 87,95,000 via RTGS and digital platforms after being falsely threatened with arrest by Bengaluru Police. The applicant’s bank account, opened using his Aadhaar, PAN, and photograph, received Rs. 4,20,000 of the defrauded amount on 21/06/2025.
Procedural History
- 21/06/2025: Rs. 4,20,000 credited into applicant’s Federal Bank account via RTGS
- 03/08/2025: Complainant filed written complaint
- 04/08/2025: FIR registered against nine accused, including applicant
- 17/08/2025: Applicant arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- 23/02/2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
The Parties' Positions
- Applicant claims: He was unaware of fraudulent use of his account; his SIM, ATM card, and bank details were forcibly taken by absconding co-accused Aniket Rohra; no recovery or direct involvement established
- State contends: Applicant knowingly handed over banking credentials for monetary gain; account linked to three inter-state cyber fraud complaints; active facilitation of crime established
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail, arguing no direct involvement, no recovery from him, and severe hardship to his family as sole breadwinner.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether knowingly providing a bank account for monetary consideration to an unknown third party, later used in cyber fraud, constitutes a prima facie offence under Section 66(d) of the IT Act and Section 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sufficient to justify denial of regular bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the applicant had no knowledge of the fraudulent transactions, that his banking credentials were taken without consent by an absconding co-accused, and that the charge-sheet contained no material linking him to the deception or digital impersonation. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest and denial of bail cannot rest on suspicion alone, especially where no recovery or direct act is established.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the applicant’s act of voluntarily handing over his KYC-linked bank account, SIM card, and ATM card to a third party for monetary consideration amounted to active facilitation of cyber fraud. Citing State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sadiq, the State emphasized that enabling financial infrastructure for illegal activity, even without direct deception, satisfies the mens rea requirement under Section 66(d). Three similar complaints registered against the same account across states were presented as evidence of criminal antecedents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of Section 66(d), which criminalizes the use of a computer resource to send information known to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will. The Court held that the act of providing a bank account for the receipt of proceeds from cyber fraud constitutes a form of digital facilitation that falls squarely within the ambit of this provision.
"The applicant, by voluntarily handing over his bank account and ATM card to a co-accused for monetary consideration, consciously enabled the commission of a large-scale cyber fraud. This is not mere passive receipt of funds; it is active complicity."
The Court distinguished Arnesh Kumar by noting that the case involved arbitrary arrests for minor offences under Section 498A IPC, whereas here, the applicant’s conduct was integral to the financial mechanism of a sophisticated, multi-victim cybercrime network. The existence of three inter-state complaints against the same account demonstrated a pattern of conduct, not isolated error. The Court further held that the substantial sum involved, the organized nature of the fraud, and the risk of witness tampering or absconding justified the denial of bail under the triple test - nature of accusation, likelihood of reoffending, and risk to investigation.
The Verdict
The applicant’s bail application was rejected. The Court held that knowingly providing banking infrastructure for cyber fraud constitutes a prima facie offence under Section 66(d) IT Act and Section 318(4) BNS, and that the gravity of the offence, inter-state ramifications, and criminal antecedents justify denial of regular bail.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bank Account Provision Is Not Innocent
- Practitioners must now treat the voluntary transfer of KYC-linked bank accounts to third parties as a red flag for criminal liability
- Even if the accused claims ignorance, courts will infer intent where monetary consideration is involved
- Defence arguments based on "lack of knowledge" require corroborative evidence - mere assertion will not suffice
Inter-State Complaints Are Admissible as Pattern Evidence
- Multiple complaints registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal against the same account can be used to establish criminal antecedents
- This creates a new evidentiary standard for bail applications in cyber fraud cases
- Defence must proactively challenge the authenticity and linkage of such complaints
Bail Denial Based on Facilitation, Not Direct Fraud
- The Court has expanded liability beyond direct deception to include financial enablers
- Lawyers must now assess whether their client’s role in a cyber fraud case involved access to financial infrastructure
- Applications for bail must address not just direct acts but indirect facilitation under Section 66(d) and Section 318(4)
