Grant of regular bail to a woman accused in a cyber-fraud case, considering her limited role, duration of custody, and personal circumstances (minor children), exercising judicial discretion in accordance with established precedents.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sameer Mansuri appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11201018260022 of 2026 registered with CID Cyber Crime Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 66 (C), 66(d) and 66 of the I.T. Act .

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

(i) The allegation being that the accused had defrauded the complainant bank and had laundered money which had been earned out from the said fraud.

(ii) The allegation against the present applicant being that the present applicant had facilitated laundering of a part of the amount, which had fraudulently taken out of the bank.

(iii) It would appear in this regard that the FIR and subsequent investigation, which has continued up till now, reveals that the amount of Rs.7,34,00,000/- (approximately) had been transferred from four accounts of the complainant bank i.e. Bhavnagar District Cooperative Bank and whereas the same was facilitated by hacking into the system of the said bank.

(iv) It would appear that the allegation against the present applicant is that upon instructions of a co-accused, the applicant had procured bank account, and an amount of Rs.10 Lakh, which is part of the Rs.7.34 Crores referred to hereinabove, had been deposited and whereas the applicant and other co-accused had withdrawn part of the remaining amount, had been transferred to other co-accused. The allegation against the applicant being that she had received Rs.50,000/- as commission for the above activities.

(v) While role of the present applicant is prima facie clear and whereas the offence is very serious, yet considering the fact that the present applicant is a lady accused, aged around 30 years, having minor children and is in custody since 22.03.2026 i.e. approximately more than 40 days, this Court is inclined to allow this application, albeit, with appropriate safeguards.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7