Bail may be granted upon a showing of changed circumstances, such as Investigating Officer statements that weaken the nexus between the accused and the crime, particularly when the accused can demonstrate they were a victim of the same fraud.

Order

05/05/2026

1. The instant third bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS who has been arrested in connection with the FIR No.41/2025 dated 29.01.2025 registered at the Police Station Purani Abaadi, District Sriganganagar, for the offences under Sections 420, 403, 406, 424 & 120-B of IPC.

2. Earlier the second bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 as not pressed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the statements of Investigating Officer have been recorded and in the changed circumstances, the present third bail application has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention of this Court towards statements of the Investigating Officer submits that the Investigating Officer has stated in his statements that he has not investigated the bank account of the petitioner during the investigation and has further stated that the SIM card, associated with the petitioner through which net banking was occurred, was not seized by him. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the investigating officer in his investigation has also revealed that the said SIM card was used by co-accused Rohit Goyal but the same was not seized from him. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 19.11.2024 against co-accused, namely, Rajat and Rohit, which fact has also been admitted by the investigating officer in his statement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer has disclosed that the relevant SIM card belongs to co-accused Rohit Goyal, yet it was not seized from him, which seriously weakens the case that the petitioner had exclusive control over the communication. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that no investigation was conducted with respect to the number, from which the bank officer allegedly called the complainant, while the record shows that the complainant himself furnished two mobile numbers, one of which, 6375612872, was stated to have been used for net banking and given to Rohit Goyal, thereby creating doubt about actual user, possession and control of that number and undermining the alleged nexus between the petitioner and the offence. He further submits that the prosecution material further shows that the funds in the complainant’s account originated from Gajanan’s Utkarsh Bank account, and that Gajanan has stated that accused Virendra, using his account, transferred an amount of five thousand rupees for account opening into the SBI Bank Collectorate Branch account, and that the same account was being used by Rohit Goyal; yet Gajanan has not been arrayed as an accused, indicating that the movement of funds and use of the account are attributable to other persons. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner lodged a complaint on 19.11.2024, and that the Investigating Officer has recorded that the petitioner filed a complaint against co-accused, namely, Rajat and Rohit for cyber fraud, underscoring that the petitioner is himself a victim and not the principal offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that prima facie no cogent case is made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as he has no previous criminal antecedents and that having already been in custody since 21.03.2025; the trial will take considerable time, the petitioner-accused may be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing bail, submits that the case involves a serious cyber fraud with substantial financial loss and that