AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
This is the second petition preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.370 dated 14.10.2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Gurugram, under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the first having been dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2026 (Annexure P-3).
Status report by way of affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Fogat, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber, Gurugram, filed in the Registry and custody certificate dated 19.09.2026 filed in Court today, are taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file.
On the complaint submitted by one Rakesh Gupta, the FIR in question was registered. It is yet again a case of cyber fraud, wherein after having received a friend request on 06.08.2026 on Facebook from a woman identifying herself as Meera Sharma, a Whatsapp communication was established by the complainant with her. The lady is alleged to have induced the complainant to invest in crypto currency trading by representing that her uncle, residing in the USA had access to a beta version of an algorithm which assured almost 90% success in crypto trading on the eToro platform. The complainant was also told that the profits would be used for establishing an NGO for the welfare of poor people. The complainant transferred money on 19 occasions, totalling to about Rs.1.94 Crores into various bank accounts operated by different entities. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs had been credited to the account of one a Sachibhawana Foundation. Ankit Kumar and Deepak, both brothers, are Directors of the said foundation. They were arrested on 15.10.2025. The petitioner was arrested on 20.12.2025 and is in custody since then.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. She submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean and he is in custody for the last more than 09 months. She submits that co-accused Ankit has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2026 passed in CRM-M No.20333 of 2026 (Annexure P-6) and the case of the petitioner is on a better footing. She submits that on account of the grant of bail to the said Ankit, the petitioner is entitled to maintain the present second petition for the grant of regular bail. She further submits that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean; investigation stands completed; final report stands submitted on 17.02.2026; charges have been framed but out of 06 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined; the trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail application, stating that the allegations are very serious and in case the petitioner is granted bail, he may try to threaten the witnesses and may also abscond.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
No doubt, the allegations are serious. Such crimes are on the rise. The complainant transferred a sum of Rs.1.94 Crores on the asking of some lady who is stated to have become his friend on Facebook. One Satish is stated to be the mastermind who used to take bank kits from different people for transfer of the amount/s. The said Satish is in custody. Co-accused Ankit has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2026 passed in CRM-M No.20333 of 2026 (Annexure P-6). The antecedents of the petitioner are clean. He is in custody since 22.12.2025. More than 09 months have elapsed. Investigation stands completed. Final report has been submitted. Charges have been framed on 17.02.2026 but no witness has yet been examined. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.