The court granted bail to petitioners charged with cybercrime, considering their custodial duration and lack of flight risk, as allegations were not substantiated by strong evidence warranting continued detention.

JUDGMENT :

G.Satapathy, J.

1. These are the bail applications U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with CID Cyber Crime PS Case No.34 of 2024 corresponding to GR Case No.539 of 2024 pending in the file of learned JMFC(III), Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.419/420/465/467/486/471/120-B/34 of IPC r/w Sections 66(C)/66(D) of IT Act.

2. The relevant allegation as found in this case is that on coming across some lucrative Facebook advertisement to invest in stocks and IPOs, the informant when clicked a link received from Whatsapp account of Phone No.+91-9787120376, it was persuaded to him to open an account and invest in the said app namely “Jef CP” and, accordingly, the informant invested the amount on the greed for higher returns and in the process, he transferred a total sum of Rs.1,45,85,000/- to ten bank accounts w.e.f. May 05, 2024 to June 27, 2024, however, on suspicion he verified and later on, lodged an FIR paving the way for registration of CID Cyber Crime PS Case No.34 of 2024 and in the course of investigation, finding the involvement of the petitioners in some way, they have been taken into custody, which ultimately led them to approached this Court for grant of bail in these bail applications.

3. In the course of hearing, Ms. Abhilipsa Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.10424 of 2025 submits that the petitioner is not aware of any amount received in his account nor has he any role in deceiving the informant or causing loss to the informant, rather the petitioner being a bonafide account holder has not made any transaction with the amount so received in his account and a sum of Rs.12,25,000/- has been credited to his account in four transaction. Ms. Mohanty, accordingly, prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

3.1. Similarly, Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.11090 of 2025 submits that a sum of Rs.73,500/- was credited to the account of the petitioner from co- accused Chandan Kumar Sahu, but he does not know as to how the amount has been credited to his account.

3.2. Similarly, Mr. Prasanta Kumar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No.11292 of 2025 also submits that a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- was credited to the account of the petitioner, but as per the allegation on record, he has made withdrawal of Rs.3,00,000/-, however, he has also credited some amount in the account of petitioner-Ramahari Sahu.

3.3. Further, all the counsels appearing for the respective petitioners submit that the petitioners were in custody for a substantial period and in the meanwhile, charge-sheet has already been submitted, but all the offences alleged against them are triable by Magistrate and, therefore, the petitioners may kindly be granted bail.

3.4. In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar Agrawalla, learned counsel for the informant by drawing attention of the Court to the transaction to the account of the petitioner, submits that these petitioners being involved in fraudulent transaction made to their account, they are not entitled to be the benefit of bail. Mr. Agrawalla accordingly prays to reject the bail application of the petitioners.

3.5. In opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioners, Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor only reiterates the allegation leveled against the petitioners and prays to reject their bail applications.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, there appears some allegation against the petitioners for receiving some amount in their accounts, but the petitioners are in custody since 11/12.09.2025 and in the meantime, charge-sheet has already been submitted. Further, it is not brought to the notice of the Court tha