Bail in Economic Offences | Prima Facie Evidence and Flight Risk Under BNS : Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court's rejection of bail in a ₹2.42 crore cyber fraud case under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 establishes critical parameters for bail consideration in economic offences. The judgment clarifies that organized conspiracy, substantial financial misappropriation, and flight risk outweigh factors like first-time offender status or completion of investigation, reinforcing that bail is not automatic even when charge-sheets are filed.

Background & Facts

The Cyber Fraud Scheme

The applicant, Dharmendra Prasad, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 18/2025 registered at Police Station Range Cyber, Bilaspur. The investigation revealed a sophisticated cyber fraud operation where:

• Five victims across Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu had amounts ranging from ₹2,000 to ₹31,750 fraudulently transferred to the applicant's IDBI Bank account
• A total of ₹20.44 lakh was credited and transferred between April-July 2025
• The applicant's account was allegedly used as a mule account to route proceeds of crime
• The prosecution later discovered the applicant's wife's City Union Bank account was also involved, with total transactions exceeding ₹2.42 crore

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• April-July 2025: Fraudulent transactions detected through JMIS portal
• 2025: FIR registered under Sections 61(2), 317(5), 318(4), 323, and 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023
• 2025: Applicant arrested and charge-sheet filed
• January 2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Parties' Positions

The applicant sought bail on multiple grounds:

• First-time offender with clean antecedents
• Completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet
• Lack of direct evidence linking him to the fraudulent transactions
• No requirement for custodial interrogation
• Prolonged pre-trial detention would amount to punishment

The State opposed bail citing:

• Prima facie evidence of organized conspiracy
• Flight risk due to the economic nature of the offence
• Potential to influence evidence or regroup with criminal associates
• Substantial financial misappropriation (₹2.42 crore)

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 when:

1. The investigation is complete and charge-sheet filed
2. The accused is a first-time offender
3. The offence involves organized economic fraud with substantial financial implications
4. There exists a reasonable apprehension of flight or evidence tampering

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

The defence counsel advanced several arguments:

• The applicant was not a habitual offender, a significant factor in economic offences
• The entire investigation was complete, with no requirement for further custodial interrogation
• No direct evidence linked the applicant to the fraudulent transactions; his account was allegedly used by unknown cyber fraudsters
• Only ₹47,350 of the ₹20.44 lakh transactions could be directly linked to complaints
• All evidence was documentary and electronic, already in possession of the investigating agency
• No eyewitnesses or victims could be influenced
• Prolonged pre-trial detention would violate principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
• The applicant was a permanent resident with no likelihood of absconding

For the State

The prosecution countered with:

• Prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in a well-planned conspiracy
• The applicant's account and his wife's account were used to misappropriate over ₹2.42 crore
• Flight risk due to the economic nature of the offence and the substantial amount involved
• Potential to regroup with criminal associates and commit further offences
• The serious and organized nature of the offence outweighed the applicant's clean antecedents

The Court's Analysis

The Court's analysis centered on balancing individual liberty against societal interests in economic offences. Key aspects of the reasoning included:

1. Nature and Gravity of the Offence: The Court emphasized that the case involved organized economic fraud with a substantial financial impact (₹2.42 crore). The conspiracy to open bank accounts in victims' names and transact money without consent demonstrated a high degree of criminal sophistication.

   "Considering the serious and economic nature of the offences, the organized and deep-rooted conspiracy involved, the large scale of misappropriated funds, and the fact that the applicant was arrested after considerable efforts by the police, it is apprehended that if enlarged on bail, he may abscond, influence the evidence, or regroup to commit further offences."

2. Prima Facie Evidence: The Court noted that the investigation revealed prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the conspiracy. The fact that both the applicant's account and his wife's account were used to route fraudulent transactions strengthened the prosecution's case.

3. Flight Risk and Evidence Tampering: The Court held that the economic nature of the offence and the substantial amount involved created a reasonable apprehension of flight. Additionally, the potential to influence evidence or regroup with criminal associates was a significant concern.

4. Completion of Investigation: While the applicant argued that the investigation was complete and no custodial interrogation was required, the Court observed that this factor alone was not sufficient to grant bail in cases involving organized economic fraud.

5. Precedents and Bail Jurisprudence: The Court acknowledged the principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar regarding bail as the rule and jail as the exception. However, it distinguished these precedents on the grounds that:

   • The present case involved organized economic fraud with substantial financial implications
   • There was a reasonable apprehension of flight and evidence tampering
   • The seriousness of the offence outweighed the applicant's clean antecedents

The Verdict

The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the bail application of Dharmendra Prasad. The Court held that:

1. The prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in an organized economic fraud was sufficient to deny bail
2. The flight risk and potential to influence evidence or regroup with criminal associates outweighed factors like completion of investigation and first-time offender status
3. The serious and economic nature of the offence, involving substantial financial misappropriation, justified the denial of bail

What This Means For Similar Cases

Economic Offences Require Stricter Scrutiny

The judgment reinforces that economic offences involving organized fraud are subject to stricter scrutiny in bail considerations. Practitioners should note:

• Completion of investigation is not a decisive factor in economic offences
• Substantial financial misappropriation (₹2.42 crore in this case) creates a reasonable apprehension of flight
• Organized conspiracy with multiple victims and accounts strengthens the prosecution's case for denying bail

Flight Risk in Economic Offences

Courts are likely to view economic offences with substantial financial implications as inherently carrying a higher flight risk. Key takeaways:

• Economic nature of the offence alone can justify denial of bail
• Substantial amounts involved (₹2.42 crore in this case) heighten flight risk concerns
• International or inter-state dimensions of the fraud further exacerbate flight risk

Prima Facie Evidence Suffices for Bail Denial

The judgment clarifies that bail can be denied based on prima facie evidence of involvement in economic offences. Practitioners should:

• Challenge the strength of prima facie evidence in bail applications
• Distinguish cases where the accused's involvement is peripheral or lacks direct evidence
• Emphasize lack of flight risk through strong ties to the community, family responsibilities, or other mitigating factors