Bail is the rule, not the exception; accusations must be substantiated for pre-trial detention. Allegations based solely on documentary evidence without direct involvement in the crime warrant bail.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime & Economic offences UPD PS Case No. 0032 of 2025 corresponding to GR Case No.402 of 2025 pending in the file of learned JMFC-I(Cog.Taking), Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.318(4)/319(2)/336(4)/338/340(2)/3(5) of BNS read with Sec. 66(C)/66(D) of IT Act.

2. It appears from the record that one Samir Pratap Harichandan lodged an FIR before the ACP, Cyber Police Station, Cuttack alleging therein that he came in contact with one trading company namely, M/S.Spreadex Global Ltd. in the month of February, 2025 through Telegram App with user name Good_Priya Bajaj having mobile No.+917297864486 and thereafter, he went on depositing Rs.78 Lakhs in a phase wise manner in the said company and as per the statement of the said company, his investment grew up to $ 2,56,981 USD, which is equivalent to INR Rs.2 Crores, but when he wanted to withdraw the amount, the said company asked him to deposit INR Rs.29,16,130/- towards foreign exchange value and income tax etc., however, when he asked the company to deduct the same from the amount payable to him, the company refused and he, thereby, smelled the financial fraud. In the FIR, the informant has further prayed for recovery of his hard earned money. Pursuant to the FIR, a criminal case was registered against unknown persons and the matter was investigated into, but finding the involvement of the petitioners in the course of investigation, they were taken into custody and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 318(4)/319(2)/336(4)/338/340(2)/61(2)/3(5) of the BNS r/w Sec.66C/66D of the IT Act.

3. Heard, Mr. Y. Das, learned Senior Counsel, who is being assisted by Mr.M.Mukul & Mr. N.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 5714 of 2025; Ms.M.Mohapatra appearing along with Mr.A.Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in BLAPL Nos. 6232, 6303, 6347,6350 & 7091 of 2025 and Mr. A.Pradhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in these matters and perused the record.

3.1. It is, however, submitted for the petitioners that they are neither having any transaction with the informant nor were having any link with the company M/S.Spreadex Global Ltd., but the account No.8005657281 belongs to petitioner Deepak Dharua(BLAPL No. 7091 of 2025), but Rs.2 Lakhs was transferred to the said account as per the charge-sheet, however, Rs.1.5 Lakhs is still available in the said account, but the petitioners are in custody since the month of May and June, 2025 and in the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted. It is also submitted for the petitioners that the name of none of the petitioners finds place in the FIR nor any specific allegation is raised out against any of the petitioners, but the informant being an educated person has invested the money in the company, which has no link with the petitioners, however, such investment is subject to market risk like mutual fund and even if for the sake of argument, if the investment of the informant has not been returned, he should have approached the financial authority like “SEBI”. Further, it is also argued for the petitioners that the allegation leveled against the petitioners is based on documentary evidence and, thereby, the petitioners having no scope to tamper with the prosecution evidence/materials, they may kindly be granted bail. In response to the affidavit filed by the IO with regard to involvement of the petitioners in FIR No.184 of 2025 in Bruhan, Mumbai, Cyber Police Thane and FIR No.151 of