The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be sustained where investigative deficiencies cast serious doubt on the accused’s direct involvement in alleged cyber fraud. The judgment underscores the necessity of substantive evidence over speculative linkage in bail proceedings under Section 483 BNSS.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Virendra Kumar, son of Shri Mishri Lal, aged 36, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 41/2025 dated 29.01.2025 registered at Police Station Purani Abaadi, District Sri Ganganagar, for offences under Sections 420, 403, 406, 424 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case involves allegations of cyber fraud leading to financial loss through unauthorized net banking transactions.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was arrested on 21.03.2025 and has remained in custody since then.
- The complainant alleged that funds were siphoned from his bank account via net banking initiated using a mobile number (6375612872) linked to the petitioner.
- The Investigating Officer admitted in his statement that he did not investigate the petitioner’s bank account.
- The SIM card allegedly used for net banking transactions was not seized from the petitioner.
- The Investigating Officer disclosed that the SIM card in question belonged to co-accused Rohit Goyal and was not seized from him either.
- The complainant himself provided two mobile numbers to the bank; one of them, 6375612872, was stated to have been given to Rohit Goyal.
- The funds in the complainant’s account originated from Gajanan’s Utkarsh Bank account.
- Gajanan stated that the petitioner transferred Rs. 5,000 to open an SBI Bank account at Collectorate Branch, but that the same account was being used by Rohit Goyal.
- Gajanan has not been arrayed as an accused despite his direct financial involvement.
- The petitioner lodged a complaint on 19.11.2024 against co-accused Rajat and Rohit Goyal for cyber fraud, a fact acknowledged by the Investigating Officer.
Procedural History
- 29.01.2025: FIR No. 41/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Abaadi.
- 21.03.2025: Petitioner arrested and lodged in Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar.
- 17.10.2025: Second bail application dismissed by this Court as not pressed.
- 05.05.2026: Third bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS, relying on newly recorded statements of the Investigating Officer.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release on bail, citing prolonged custody since 21.03.2025, absence of criminal antecedents, and grave investigative lapses undermining the prosecution’s case.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner’s continued custody is justified under Section 483 BNSS when the Investigating Officer has admitted to critical failures in collecting digital evidence, failed to investigate alternate suspects, and acknowledged the petitioner’s status as a complainant in the same fraud scheme.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Investigating Officer’s own statements to argue that no prima facie case exists against the petitioner. He highlighted that: (i) the SIM card used for transactions was not seized from the petitioner; (ii) the number linked to the fraud was provided by the complainant to Rohit Goyal; (iii) the funds originated from Gajanan’s account, which was also used by Rohit Goyal; (iv) Gajanan was not arrayed as an accused despite his role; and (v) the petitioner had filed a complaint against the co-accused on 19.11.2024, establishing his victim status. He submitted that the prosecution’s case is built on conjecture and that the petitioner, with no prior criminal record, should not remain in custody pending a trial that may take years.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor did not dispute the factual admissions made by the Investigating Officer. He conceded that the bank account was not probed, the SIM card was not seized, and the complainant had provided the number to Rohit Goyal. However, he argued that the petitioner’s financial transactions, including the Rs. 5,000 deposit into the SBI account, created a sufficient link to the fraud to justify continued custody. He contended that the trial court must be allowed to assess the totality of evidence and that bail should not be granted merely due to investigative shortcomings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the state of the investigation with particular attention to the Investigating Officer’s admissions. It noted that the prosecution’s case hinges on circumstantial links that are neither corroborated nor exclusive to the petitioner. The failure to seize the SIM card, investigate the source of funds, or examine Gajanan’s role significantly weakens the evidentiary foundation.
"The Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not investigated the bank account of the petitioner... the SIM card... was not seized... and that the same SIM card was used by co-accused Rohit Goyal."
The Court emphasized that bail is not a reward for innocence but a recognition of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty pending trial. It observed that where the prosecution’s case is marred by material omissions and the accused has no prior record, prolonged detention becomes disproportionate.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s own complaint against the co-accused on 19.11.2024, recorded by the Investigating Officer, casts the petitioner not as a perpetrator but as a victim of the same fraud. This fact, coupled with the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the fraudulent transactions, rendered the case against him speculative.
The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case but held that the threshold for granting bail under Section 483 BNSS is met when the prosecution’s case is demonstrably underdeveloped and the accused has been in custody for over a year.
The Verdict
The bail application is allowed. The petitioner, Virendra Kumar, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on all hearing dates and as otherwise directed. The order is effective immediately.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Investigative Lapses Can Justify Bail Even in Serious Cyber Fraud
- Practitioners may now argue that failure to seize digital evidence (SIM cards, devices, bank logs) or to investigate alternate suspects undermines the prosecution’s prima facie case.
- Courts are likely to view prolonged custody as unjustified where the Investigating Officer admits to non-investigation of key digital trails.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate why custody is necessary when the evidence is fragmented and non-exclusive.
Victim Status as a Bail Factor in Cyber Crime
- Filing a complaint against co-accused prior to arrest can be a decisive factor in establishing the accused’s victim status.
- Courts may now consider the accused’s role as a complainant in the same fraud as evidence of lack of criminal intent.
- Prosecution cannot rely on financial transactions alone if those transactions are also linked to unprosecuted third parties.
Procedural Negligence Cannot Sustain Pre-Trial Detention
- Bail applications under Section 483 BNSS should be evaluated on the quality of investigation, not merely the gravity of the offence.
- Delay in trial alone, when coupled with investigative gaps, strengthens the case for release.
- Courts must not defer to the prosecution’s conclusory assertions when the record reveals material omissions.
