The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that bail cannot be granted in complex cyber fraud cases merely on the assertion of innocence when bank accounts show large-scale, unexplained financial transactions. The judgment underscores that at the bail stage, courts must assess the prima facie case, not the merits of defense claims.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Vivek Yadav and Karan Yadav, were arrested in connection with multiple cyber fraud complaints involving unauthorized fund transfers through their bank accounts. The investigation revealed that between February 2024 and August 2025, their accounts received substantial sums - Rs. 2.27 crore in Vivek Yadav’s accounts and Rs. 14.05 lakh in Karan Yadav’s accounts - linked to 16 separate cyber complaints filed by banks and victims.
Procedural History
- October 13, 2025: Earlier bail applications were rejected by the same court, with liberty granted to revive the plea after completion of investigation.
- December 2025: Charge-sheet filed by the Alwar Police, concluding investigation into a syndicate led by a third accused, Jasraaj S/o Rajpal.
- January 2026: Fresh bail applications filed, arguing that petitioners were unaware of misuse and had no criminal antecedents.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought regular bail, contending that their accounts were misused by the main accused, the allegations were triable by a Magistrate, and prolonged custody without trial violated their right to liberty.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied in cyber fraud cases where the accused’s bank accounts show large-scale, unexplained transactions, even if they claim to be innocent and merely used as conduits by others.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the petitioners had no prior criminal record and were not the masterminds behind the fraud. They relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to assert that arrest and detention should not be automatic, and that the burden to prove active participation lay with the prosecution. They emphasized that the main accused was elsewhere and that the petitioners’ accounts were merely instrumentalized.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor contended that the scale and pattern of transactions - running into crores - indicated complicity, even if indirect. They cited State of Rajasthan v. Suresh Kumar to argue that possession and control of accounts used in large-scale fraud create a strong prima facie case. The prosecution highlighted the organized nature of the syndicate and the risk of evidence tampering if the petitioners were released.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to evaluate the truth of the petitioners’ claim that their accounts were misused, noting that such factual disputes are beyond the scope of bail proceedings. It emphasized that bail applications are not trials, and courts must not weigh evidence or assess credibility at this stage.
"The questions concerning the admissibility, credibility, or effect of evidence, and the weight to be accorded to witness statements, are all matters to be adjudicated at the stage of trial, and not while exercising jurisdiction on a bail application."
The Court found that the prima facie case was established by the volume and timing of transactions, which were absent prior to 2024. The fact that over Rs. 2 crore flowed through one petitioner’s accounts, coupled with multiple cyber complaints, created a reasonable ground to believe the petitioners were involved in the scheme, even if not as orchestrators.
The Court also referenced the gravity of cyber fraud as a societal threat, noting the rising number of victims and the organized nature of such crimes. It held that the organized and large-scale nature of the transactions, even if the petitioners were not the kingpins, justified denial of bail under the triple test - nature of accusation, likelihood of flight, and risk to investigation.
The Court explicitly clarified that its observations did not prejudge the merits of the case, but the scale of financial activity alone was sufficient to tip the balance against bail.
The Verdict
The bail applications were dismissed. The Court held that in cyber fraud cases involving large-scale unauthorized transactions through an accused’s bank accounts, a prima facie case is established even without proof of direct intent, and bail may be denied on grounds of gravity and public interest.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Cannot Be Granted on Claims of Innocence Alone
- Practitioners must now demonstrate more than mere assertion of being a "conduit" - they must show concrete evidence of lack of knowledge or active resistance to misuse.
- Claims of no criminal antecedents are insufficient if the financial trail is overwhelming.
- Courts will prioritize the scale of financial impact over personal circumstances at the bail stage.
Bank Account Activity Is a Critical Factor in Cyber Fraud Bail Decisions
- Sudden, unexplained inflows into accounts, especially after a period of inactivity, will be treated as strong indicia of involvement.
- Even if the accused is not the originator, control over accounts used for laundering or receiving proceeds of crime creates a sufficient basis for denial of bail.
- Defense counsel should prepare affidavits and bank statements showing legitimate sources or prior usage patterns to counter this presumption.
Courts Will Not Delay Justice for Complex Cyber Cases
- The Court’s reference to the need for public awareness and institutional reform signals that bail in such cases will remain restrictive until systemic safeguards improve.
- Practitioners should anticipate stricter scrutiny in future bail applications involving digital financial crimes, especially under Section 66 of the IT Act and Section 420 IPC.
- Applications should be filed early and supported by forensic audit reports or transaction timelines to challenge the prosecution’s narrative.
