The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that mere administrative involvement in bank account opening procedures, without evidence of active participation in fraudulent intent, does not justify continued judicial custody in cyber fraud cases. This order reinforces the principle that bail must be granted where the accused’s role is peripheral and no prima facie case of criminal conspiracy or dishonesty is established.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Vikram Singh S/o Shri Harlal, aged 42, is a Field Officer at the State Bank of India, Branch Pankha Circle, District Churu. He was arrested on 15.05.2026 in connection with FIR No. 0006 dated 03.09.2025, registered at the Cyber Police Station, Karauli. The FIR alleges offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008, relating to cyber fraud involving the fraudulent opening of a bank account in the name of M/s. AK Fashion and Garments.
Key Facts
- The applicant was employed as a Field Officer with the State Bank of India at the time of arrest.
- The FIR does not mention the applicant’s name in the list of accused persons.
- The prosecution’s case, as per the FIR and supporting documents, alleges that the bank account of M/s. AK Fashion and Garments was opened using forged documents.
- The applicant’s alleged role was limited to collecting and collating documents submitted by the firm for the purpose of opening the bank account.
- No material on record links the applicant to the fabrication of documents, misrepresentation, or any financial gain from the transaction.
- The applicant has been in custody since 15.05.2026.
- The applicant has previously been acquitted in two other criminal cases.
Procedural History
- 03.09.2025: FIR No. 0006 registered at Cyber Police Station, Karauli.
- 15.05.2026: Applicant arrested and taken into custody.
- 24.06.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant: The applicant’s counsel argued that the applicant’s role was purely administrative - collecting and submitting documents for bank account opening - and that there was no evidence linking him to the fraudulent intent or execution of the alleged offence. Counsel emphasized that the applicant’s name does not appear in the FIR, and the prosecution has not adduced any material to establish mens rea or active participation. Counsel also highlighted the applicant’s clean record, including prior acquittals in two other cases.
For the Respondent: The Public Prosecutor did not dispute the limited nature of the applicant’s role or the fact that all alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate. No counter-evidence was presented to contradict the applicant’s claim of non-involvement.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought immediate release on bail, arguing that continued custody serves no investigative purpose given the absence of prima facie evidence against him and the non-serious nature of his alleged involvement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused person, whose alleged role in a cyber fraud case is confined to routine document collection for bank account opening and whose name does not appear in the FIR, can be denied bail solely on the basis of the general allegations in the FIR, in the absence of any prima facie evidence of criminal intent or participation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the accused’s role is peripheral and no direct link to the offence is established. Counsel cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest and continued custody cannot be automatic merely because an offence is non-bailable. Counsel emphasized that the applicant’s conduct, even if viewed in the prosecution’s light, amounted to no more than administrative assistance, which does not constitute an offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2)(a) of BNS or Section 66D of the IT Act. The absence of the applicant’s name in the FIR and the lack of any corroborative evidence were underscored as decisive factors.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor did not contest the factual assertions made by the applicant’s counsel. While opposing bail on general grounds, the Prosecutor conceded that all offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate and did not present any material to establish the applicant’s active involvement or criminal intent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the applicant’s alleged role and the evidentiary basis for his arrest. It noted that the FIR does not name the applicant as an accused, and the prosecution has not demonstrated any direct or indirect participation in the fraudulent scheme. The Court observed that collecting and submitting documents for bank account opening is a standard procedural function performed by field officers in banking institutions, and such activity, without more, cannot be equated with criminal intent or conspiracy.
"The role of the accused-applicant was limited to the extent of collecting and collating the documents for opening of the bank account, which were then submitted by him to the concerned branch of the bank."
The Court further held that the absence of any material linking the applicant to the fabrication of documents, misrepresentation, or financial benefit renders the case against him speculative. The Court emphasized that the burden to establish prima facie involvement lies with the prosecution, and in the absence of such evidence, continued custody cannot be justified. The Court also took note of the applicant’s employment status, his clean record, and the fact that all offences are non-serious and triable by a Magistrate.
The Court rejected the notion that mere association with a fraudulent transaction, without active participation, warrants detention. It held that the applicant’s custody serves no investigative purpose and that his cooperation can be secured through bail conditions.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted bail to Vikram Singh S/o Shri Harlal on the following terms: personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, to be approved by the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on all hearing dates, not leave the country without permission, not commit any similar offence, not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and must mark attendance at the concerned police station on the 25th of every month. The S.H.O. is directed to maintain a register of his monthly attendance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Routine Administrative Acts Do Not Constitute Criminal Liability
- Practitioners must challenge arrests where the accused’s role is limited to clerical or procedural functions in banking or corporate transactions, absent evidence of intent or benefit.
- Merely handling documents for a third party does not equate to participation in fraud under Sections 316(2), 318(4), or 66D of the IT Act.
Bail Must Be Granted Where No Prima Facie Case Exists
- Courts must scrutinize the factual basis of arrest before denying bail, especially in cyber offences where allegations are often broad and uncorroborated.
- The absence of the accused’s name in the FIR is a strong indicator of lack of direct involvement and should be weighed heavily in bail applications.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable in Cyber Cases
- Prosecutors must establish a clear nexus between the accused and the fraudulent act - not just association.
- Bail conditions should be tailored to ensure investigation integrity without imposing undue restraint on individuals with minimal involvement.
