Bail can be denied in cyber-fraud cases involving 'digital arrest' and laundering via mule accounts due to the high gravity of the offence, the large amount extorted, and the significant negative societal ramifications of such crimes.

1. The present bail applications have been preferred under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 on behalf of the petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:-

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present bail applications are that the complainant lodged the present FIR alleging that the complainant’s aunt received a WhatsApp call wherein an unknown accused stated that he was speaking from the Crime Branch, Mumbai, and had called to place her under digital arrest. The unknown accused then sent fake receipts purportedly from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Enforcement Directorate. It was also narrated that the unknown accused kept threatening the complainant’s aunt and defrauded her of a total sum of Rs. 1,85,23,000/- from her bank account.

3. Upon investigation, the petitioners were arrested in connection with the present FIR. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred bail applications before the learned Trial Court, which were duly rejected.

4. Aggrieved by the rejection of the bail applications by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have preferred the present bail applications.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and have not committed any offences as narrated in the FIR. They further submit that the crux of the allegations has been levelled against other accused persons. They further submit that whatever amount has allegedly been credited to the concerned bank accounts has already been repaid. They further submit that the offences as alleged in the FIR are triable by a Magistrate and that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. They lastly submit that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for a considerable period and the trial of the case will take a long time to conclude; therefore, they pray that the petitioners may kindly be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and submit that the present case pertains to a ‘digital arrest’ and the accused persons have extorted a substantial amount of Rs. 1,85,23,000/-. They further submit that from the investigation in this matter, the involvement of the petitioners has been found proved and the amount extorted is yet to be recovered. They further submit that there is sufficient evidence available on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime, and accordingly pray for the dismissal of the present bail applications.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners played pivotal roles to facilitate cyber fraud by using mule accounts to launder illicit financial gains.

9. The investigation made so far reveals that the petitioner, Mukesh Rao, established communications with foreign entities in China and Hong Kong and initiated the procurement of mule accounts. To execute this, the petitioner, Ajay, leveraged his position