The court established that bail may be granted when the petitioners show no substantial involvement in the crime, have no criminal antecedents, and stringent conditions can mitigate risks of flight or tampering with ongoing investigations.

ORDER :

1. Crl.P.No.15649/2025 is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.15 to 17, Crl.P.No.15560/2025 is filed by petitioner-accused No.2, Crl.P.No.15587/2025 is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.10 to 12, Crl.P.No.15595/2025 is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5, Crl.P.No.15599/2025 is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.6 to 9, Crl.P.No.15869/2025 is filed by petitioner-accused No.14, Crl.P.No.15874/2025 is filed by the petitioner-accused No.13 and Crl.P.No.15940/2025 is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 483 of BNSS . Crl.P.No. 15699/2025 is filed by petitioners-accused Nos.20, 21 and 34 under Section 482 of .

2. All these petitions are filed seeking bail/anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.384/2025 of HSR Layout Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 66 (C), 66(D), 84(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 61 (2), 318(4), 319, 111(2) and 111(4) read with Section 3 (5) of BNS .

3. Heard learned counsels appearing for petitioners and learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State.

4. Sri. Shesha Karthik Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in some of the petitions would contend that the complaint has been filed by Police Sub- Inspector suo moto and no victims have been identified. The allegation against petitioners is that they duped citizens of US and Canada. Petitioners are employees of accused No.1-Company and they worked for the salary. Gift deeds alleged in the complaint have not been seized. The device used are recovered and seized under mahazar. While filing the charge sheet, it is not filed for offences punishable under Section 111 (2) and 111(4) of BNS . The offences alleged against petitioners are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and the maximum sentence that can be imposed is imprisonment which may extend upto 07 years. Some of the petitioners are women and they are the employees of accused No.1 – Company. The remand application dated 07.10.2025 indicate that 10 persons have not been arrested who are also similarly placed to that of petitioners who were arrested. The grounds of arrest are not detailed in the document which is stated to be communication of grounds of arrest. The major portion of investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed in so far as petitioners are concerned and therefore, they are not required for further custodial interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petitions.

5. Sri Kashyap N. Naik, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in some of the petitions would contend that the offence under Sections 66 (C) and 66(D) are bailable. The offence which is not bailable is Section 318 (4) and it is provided with punishment which may extend upto 07 years. The said offence deals with cheating and victims have not been identified. The victims are residing in US and Canada who induced victims is not forthcoming. The petitioners are not Directors of accused No.1 -Company and they are employees. The offence has taken place outside India and victims are in US and Canada. As offence committed outside India, the proviso to Section 208 of BNSS provides to obtain sanction of the Central Government. Accused No.13 is running Food Corner and he is the friend of accused No.4. Accused No.4 is married and he is having 06 months old baby and he is resident of Meghalaya.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.P.No.15699/2025 would contend that petitioner No.1 -accused No.21 is broker and he introduced accused person to landlord for office space. There is no involvement of hi