The court declined bail based on the serious nature of cyber fraud allegations, emphasizing the necessity for a prima facie case assessment without delving into evidentiary merits at the bail stage.

ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

For convenience of exposition, this order is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX

1. The earlier bail applications of both the petitioners along with co-accused Meghraj Saini were rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025, while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12729/2025 along with connected applications, granting liberty to the petitioners to revive their prayer for bail after completion of investigation.

Contentions of the petitioner:

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-Vivek Yadav and Karan Yadav submitted that after passing of the aforesaid order, investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating authority. Counsel submitted that as per the conclusion of charge-sheet, a sum of Rs. 3,16,500/- has been recovered from different bank accounts of the accused petitioner-Karan Yadav in connection with 7 cyber complaints, registered against him, and a sum of Rs. 1,92,500/- has been recovered from different bank accounts of the accused petitioner- Vivek Yadav in connection with 9 cyber complaints, registered against him. Counsel submitted that the main accused in the present matter is Jasraaj S/o Rajpal who is the kingpin of this syndicate and he is operating the above mentioned online cyber fraud, as mentioned in the charge-sheet. Counsel further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and their accounts were misused by the co-accused for getting the amounts transferred in different bank accounts of the petitioners. Counsel submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since the date of their arrest and the alleged incident is triable by the Court of Magistrate. Counsel submitted that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Counsel submitted that trial will take its own time to conclude, hence, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioners.

Contentions of the Prosecution:

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications and submitted that in all, 9 cyber complaints were received by the banks, against different bank accounts of the accused petitioner-Vivek Yadav and investigation reveals that between the period from February 2024 to August 2025, a sum of approximately Rs. 2,27,64,000/- was found to be transacted across different bank accounts of the petitioner-Vivek Yadav. Similarly, 7 cyber complaints were received against the different bank accounts of the petitioner-Karan Yadav and these accounts were found to be involved in fraudulent transactions amounting to approximately Rs. 14,05,000/-. It was further submitted that looking to the aforesaid huge amounts and the fact that several complaints were received against the petitioners, they do not deserve any indulgence of bail. Hence, the instant bail applications are liable to be rejected.

Analysis and Discussion:

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available in the charge-sheet and case diary.

5. Perusal of the case diary as well as conclusion of investigation at page Nos. 20, 21 of the charge-sheet indicates that huge amounts were deposited in the bank accounts of the petitioners between the period from 2024 to 2025 which are running in lakhs of rupees. Prior to the year 2024, no such transactions i.e. credits and deposits of such huge amounts were made