The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that mere facilitation of contact between co-accused in a cyber fraud scheme, without direct involvement in fund transfers or possession of incriminating instruments, does not justify denial of bail. This ruling reinforces the principle that custodial detention must be proportionate to the accused’s actual role and the strength of prima facie evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
A cyber fraud case was registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, after complainant Ms. Archana Bhadauriya lost Rs. 5,12,900 via a fraudulent WhatsApp link. The investigation revealed that Rs. 1,00,000 was transferred to a bank account in the name of co-accused Saurabh Kumar, while the remainder went to other accounts. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, Alok Kumar and Mohammad Irfan Ansari, facilitated contact between Saurabh Kumar and other accused persons involved in the operation of the fraudulent account.
Procedural History
- 15 - 17 September 2025: Fraudulent transaction occurs; FIR No. 734/2025 registered under Section 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
- October - November 2025: Applicants arrested after investigation by Cyber Range Police Station.
- 19 December 2025: Charge-sheet filed against all accused, including the applicants.
- February 2026: Bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought regular bail, arguing that no incriminating material was seized from them, no financial transactions linked them directly to the complainant, and their involvement was limited to alleged facilitation of meetings, based solely on uncorroborated memorandum statements under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether custodial detention can be justified solely on uncorroborated memorandum statements alleging facilitation of contact, where the accused had no direct role in the transfer, withdrawal, or possession of funds or devices used in the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the applicants’ role was peripheral: no bank account, SIM card, ATM card, or electronic device was recovered from them. No overt act was attributed to them in the charge-sheet. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on uncorroborated statements under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, which lack independent evidentiary value at the bail stage. The applicants had been in custody for over two months, and the charge-sheet was already filed, negating any need for further detention.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the applicants played an active role in an organized cyber fraud ring, facilitating the use of a bank account involved in multiple interstate frauds. The memorandum statements, though uncorroborated, formed part of a larger investigative matrix indicating their involvement. The gravity of the offence and the risk of tampering justified continued custody.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary record with strict adherence to the principle of proportionality in bail jurisprudence. It emphasized that mere association or facilitation, without direct participation in the commission of the offence, cannot sustain denial of bail.
"The allegation against the present applicants is primarily that they facilitated contact between the co-accused persons and there is no material to show that the applicants were directly involved in the transfer or withdrawal of the cheated amount."
The Court noted that the funds were transferred to Saurabh Kumar’s account, not to any account held by the applicants. No incriminating material was seized from them. The prosecution failed to establish any prima facie link between the applicants and the actual fraudulent transactions. The memorandum statements under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, while admissible as evidence, cannot alone form the basis for denying liberty where no corroborative material exists.
The Court further held that since the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicants had no history of absconding, the risk of tampering or flight was negligible. Custodial detention beyond this stage, absent direct involvement, would violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
The Verdict
The applicants won. The Court held that facilitation of contact without direct involvement in fund transfers or possession of incriminating instruments does not warrant denial of bail. The applicants were granted regular bail on personal bond with two local sureties, subject to strict conditions ensuring their presence during trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Facilitation Alone Is Insufficient for Denial of Bail
- Practitioners must challenge bail denial where the accused’s role is limited to introducing parties or arranging meetings, absent evidence of active participation in the crime.
- Courts must distinguish between principal offenders and accessories by association when applying the triple test for bail.
- Unsubstantiated memorandum statements under Section 23 BSA cannot substitute for tangible evidence at the bail stage.
Documentary Evidence Trumps Allegations
- Absence of seized devices, bank cards, or financial trails from the accused’s possession weakens the prosecution’s case significantly.
- Courts should not rely on speculative inferences drawn from co-accused statements without corroboration.
- In cyber fraud cases, the burden remains on the prosecution to establish direct nexus between the accused and the fraudulent act.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Once the charge-sheet is filed, continued custody must be justified by specific risk factors - not general allegations.
- Bail conditions must be tailored to ensure trial participation, not punitive.
- Failure to appear under Section 269 BNS or Section 209 BNS remains a viable remedy for non-compliance, making prolonged custody unnecessary.
