The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that bail is the rule and jail the exception, even in cases involving alleged cybercrime, where the accused’s role is limited, no proceeds of crime are involved, and antecedents are clean. The judgment underscores the importance of proportionality and the absence of flight risk in bail determinations under Section 483 of the BNSS.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners - Sandeep Bhatt, Harish Malakar, Ramavtar Rathi, and Henant Panwar - were arrested in connection with FIR No. 02/2026 registered at the Cyber Police Station, District DCP (Crime), Jodhpur. They are accused of offences under Sections 111(3), 318(2), 318(4), 323, 336(3), 338, 339, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The core allegation is that they procured and issued additional SIM cards using forged identity documents.
Key Facts
- The petitioners are alleged to have issued only one extra SIM card each, except Ramavtar Rathi, who is accused of issuing two.
- No proceeds of cybercrime were received by any petitioner.
- Only one case under Section 420 IPC is pending against Ramavtar and Henant Panwar.
- The antecedents of Sandeep Bhatt, Harish Malakar, and Ramavtar Rathi are described as clean.
- The petitioners have been in custody since January 2026.
- A co-accused, Prakash Bheel, named in a separate FIR, has already been granted bail by the trial court.
- The investigation is complete; no further recoveries or forensic examinations are pending.
- The petitioners are not alleged to be part of a syndicate or organized crime network.
Procedural History
- January 2026: Petitioners arrested in connection with FIR No. 02/2026.
- March 2026: Bail applications filed before the High Court under Section 483 BNSS.
- 04.05.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- Learned counsel argued that Section 111 BNS was added only to elevate the case to the Court of Sessions, despite all other offences being triable by a Magistrate.
- Emphasized that the petitioners’ involvement was minimal - issuing one or two SIMs on allegedly forged documents, without financial gain.
- Highlighted that the investigation is complete and no further evidence is expected.
- Pointed to the bail grant to co-accused Prakash Bheel as a precedent for parity.
- Submitted that the petitioners have no history of absconding or tampering with evidence.
For the Respondent
- The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, contending that the petitioners were part of a larger conspiracy to issue forged SIM cards.
- Argued that cybercrime offences, even if non-violent, carry serious societal implications and warrant strict bail scrutiny.
- Asserted that the gravity of the allegations, including use of forged documents, justified continued custody.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought release on bail under Section 483 BNSS, with personal bonds and sureties, pending trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS is justified when the accused are alleged to have committed minor cyber offences involving issuance of one or two SIM cards, without receipt of proceeds of crime, with clean antecedents, and where the investigation is complete.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the principle that bail is the rule, jail the exception, and cited State of Rajasthan v. Bal Krishan and Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. to argue that minimal involvement, absence of financial gain, and lack of flight risk are decisive factors. Counsel emphasized that Section 111 BNS was improperly invoked to convert a Magistrate-triable case into a Sessions-triable one. The fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail further supported parity.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the use of forged documents to obtain SIM cards constitutes a serious breach of telecom regulations and national security protocols. It argued that cybercrime syndicates often operate through low-level operatives, and granting bail could encourage similar offences. The prosecution maintained that the nature of the offence, even if non-violent, warranted denial of bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a structured evaluation of the petitioners’ custody status, the nature of the allegations, and the absence of aggravating factors. It noted that the petitioners were not accused of financial fraud, identity theft for monetary gain, or participation in a larger criminal network. The Court observed:
"It is not disputed that the petitioners have not received any proceeds of crime. Further, only one case under Section 420 IPC is pending against accused Ramavtar and Henant Panwar, and the antecedents of the remaining petitioners are otherwise clean. There is nothing on record, prima facie, to indicate that the petitioners are operating as part of a syndicate."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the mere use of forged documents automatically negates bail, distinguishing this case from those involving large-scale fraud or organized crime. It held that the addition of Section 111 BNS appeared to be a procedural tactic to elevate jurisdiction, as all other offences are Magistrate-triable. The Court also noted the prolonged period of custody since January 2026 and the likelihood of a lengthy trial due to the number of witnesses. Crucially, the Court found no material suggesting the petitioners would abscond or tamper with evidence.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court allowed the bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS. Each petitioner is directed to be released on bail, provided they are not wanted in any other case, upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000 each. They must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever summoned, until the conclusion of the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Minimal Involvement in Cyber Offences Warrants Bail
- Practitioners should argue that bail should be granted where the accused’s role is peripheral, such as issuing a single or dual SIM card without financial benefit.
- The absence of proceeds of crime is a decisive factor under Section 483 BNSS, even when forged documents are involved.
Procedural Overreach in Charging Should Not Deny Bail
- Courts must scrutinize whether non-bailable sections (e.g., Section 111 BNS) are invoked to artificially elevate jurisdiction.
- If the core offences are Magistrate-triable, the gravity of the case must be assessed on those charges alone.
Parity with Co-Accused Is Relevant
- When a co-accused in the same FIR or connected case is granted bail, denial to others without distinct justification violates the principle of equal treatment under law.
- This precedent supports bail applications in multi-accused cybercrime cases where roles are similar.
Investigation Completion Strengthens Bail Claim
- Once the investigation is closed and no further recoveries are anticipated, the risk of evidence tampering diminishes significantly.
- This should be a key point raised in bail applications under Section 483 BNSS.
Clean Antecedents Are Material
- A clean criminal record, especially in non-violent cyber offences, strongly supports the absence of flight risk.
- Courts must avoid blanket denials of bail based on the nature of the statute alone.
