The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the accused has no criminal history, no financial benefit from the alleged offence, and a co-accused has already been released. This order underscores the importance of proportionality and presumption of innocence in pre-trial detention decisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Chhote @ Raja Parihar, is accused in Case Crime No. 021 of 2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Hathras, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 338 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case pertains to an alleged cyber fraud involving unauthorized digital transactions and impersonation. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 27.12.2025.
Key Facts
- The FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons; the applicant’s name emerged only during investigation
- The applicant is alleged to have participated in the scheme but has not received any proceeds from the fraud
- Co-accused Devraj Rajjak received Rs. 90,000/- in his bank account and was granted bail by this Court on 05.05.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14058 of 2026
- The applicant has no prior criminal record
- No incriminating material or direct evidence links the applicant to receipt of funds or active role in execution
- The applicant has been in custody for over five months with no indication of early trial conclusion due to heavy pendency
Procedural History
- 27.12.2025: Applicant arrested and taken into judicial custody
- 05.05.2026: Co-accused Devraj Rajjak granted bail by the same Court
- 14.05.2026: Present bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- Claims innocence and false implication
- Highlights absence of any financial benefit from the alleged offence
- Points to clean criminal record
- Notes that co-accused, who received substantial proceeds, has already been granted bail
- Undertakes not to misuse liberty if released
- Argues that prolonged pre-trial detention without prospect of early trial violates Article 21
For the Respondent
- Opposes bail on grounds of seriousness of offences under BNS and IT Act
- Does not dispute the applicant’s clean record or lack of financial gain
- Does not contest that co-accused has been granted bail
- Offers no specific evidence to rebut the applicant’s claims
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks release on bail pending trial, with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and trial proceedings.
The Legal Issue
Whether an accused in a cyber fraud case under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, who has no criminal history, no financial gain from the offence, and against whom a co-accused has already been granted bail, is entitled to bail despite the gravity of the charges?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the norm and not the exception, citing Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and State of Rajasthan v. Balchand. It was submitted that the absence of any monetary benefit to the applicant distinguishes him from the co-accused who received Rs. 90,000/-. The counsel emphasized that the applicant’s detention since 27.12.2025, without any prospect of early trial, amounts to punitive detention before conviction. The undertaking not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses was presented as sufficient safeguard.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Advocate did not dispute the factual assertions made by the applicant. No counter-evidence was adduced to challenge the applicant’s clean record or the fact that the co-accused had been released. The opposition was general, citing the seriousness of the offences under BNS and the IT Act, without addressing the specific mitigating factors raised by the applicant.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the applicant’s personal circumstances. It noted that while the offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 338 BNS and Section 66D IT Act are serious, the applicant’s role, as per the record, appears peripheral. The Court observed that the applicant has not received any amount in his bank account, unlike the co-accused who received Rs. 90,000/- and was already granted bail.
"The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has not received any proceeds from the alleged offence. The co-accused, who received a substantial sum, has been released on bail. Denial of bail to the applicant under these circumstances would amount to unequal treatment without any rational basis."
The Court further noted that the applicant has been in custody for over five months, and given the pendency of cases, there is no reasonable prospect of the trial concluding in the near future. The Court held that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be indefinitely suspended merely because the charges are serious. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must be guided by proportionality and individualized assessment, not blanket assumptions.
The Court also rejected the notion that the gravity of the offence alone justifies denial of bail, particularly where other factors - clean record, no financial gain, and co-accused’s release - point toward a lesser risk of flight or tampering.
The Verdict
The bail application is allowed. The applicant, Chhote @ Raja Parihar, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applicant shall comply with five conditions: (i) no intimidation or inducement of witnesses; (ii) no pressure on prosecution witnesses; (iii) personal appearance at key trial stages; (iv) no request for adjournments when witnesses are present; and (v) presence before the court on all dates, personally or through counsel. Breach of any condition shall lead to cancellation of bail. The Court clarified that this order does not prejudge the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on Gravity of Offence
- Practitioners must argue that seriousness of charge alone is insufficient to deny bail under Section 483 BNS
- Courts must conduct individualized assessment considering financial benefit, role, and criminal history
- Where co-accused are treated differently without justification, bail denial becomes arbitrary
Pre-Trial Detention Must Be Proportionate
- Detention exceeding six months without trial prospects requires strong justification
- Pendency of cases cannot be used to justify prolonged custody
- Courts must consider alternatives to custody where accused poses no flight or tampering risk
Clean Record and Lack of Financial Gain Are Material Factors
- Absence of prior convictions must be weighed heavily in bail decisions
- Non-receipt of proceeds distinguishes minor participants from active beneficiaries
- Undertakings not to interfere with evidence are sufficient safeguards in non-violent economic offences
