Orissa High Court Grants Bail in Cyber Fraud Case, Stating 'Bail is Rule, Jail is Exception' and Imposing Strict Conditions
Safiya Malik
The Orissa High Court Single Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho has granted bail to five individuals accused in a cyber fraud case, stating the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the accused remain available for trial.
The case originated from an FIR registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station on October 4, 2023, following a complaint by a victim who alleged he was defrauded of Rs.76,15,955 by unknown individuals under the pretense of a premature release of an insurance policy. The complainant, influenced by multiple phone calls from different numbers, transferred money into various bank accounts between July 5, 2023, and September 28, 2023. During the investigation, it was found that funds from these accounts were either withdrawn or transferred to other accounts.
A charge sheet was filed on March 18, 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The accused included Bhim, Yogendra Singh, Tej Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Raghu Anand, and others. The investigation remained open for further evidence collection.
Earlier bail applications of several accused were rejected at various judicial stages, including by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, before the present applications were filed.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the accused had been in custody since November 2023 and had no prior criminal antecedents. It was contended that:
- Bhim worked in a call centre, had no direct involvement, and received no incriminating recoveries.
- Yogendra Singh, who ran a financial institution, had no direct connection to the accounts used for fraud and was falsely implicated.
- Ashish Kumar and Tej Kumar, who are relatives, were only involved in limited fund transfers without fraudulent intent.
- Raghu Anand had no role in document forgery or cybercrime as alleged by the prosecution.
The defense also stated the Supreme Court’s stance that bail should not be withheld as punishment but should serve to ensure attendance at trial. They stated the completion of investigation as a relevant factor for granting bail.
The State opposed the bail applications, arguing that the accused, in a coordinated effort, defrauded the complainant of a large sum of money. It was asserted that:
- Bhim shared sensitive insurance details and directly communicated with the victim, taking a portion of the fraudulent proceeds.
- Yogendra Singh’s accounts received illicit transfers, and his connection to missing individuals like Ankush and Kavya Singh raised suspicions.
- Ashish Kumar’s bank account was used for transactions linked to fraudulent activities.
- Tej Kumar’s account also received substantial amounts from the complainant, which were further transferred.
- Raghu Anand was directly linked to key transactions and had a significant sum seized from his possession.
- The prosecution also expressed concerns that, as non-residents of Odisha, the accused might abscond or commit similar offenses if released.
The court cited past Supreme Court judgments, reinforcing the principle that bail is a right, not a privilege. It reiterated the necessity of balancing individual liberty against the interest of justice. The court noted:
“The purpose behind arresting and detaining a person in jail is mainly for ensuring his presence during trial. Detention of an accused may also be necessary during investigation, so that he/she does not tamper with evidence or interfere with the investigation.”
The court further stated:
“Without the allegations against the petitioners being proved in the trial, their further detention will amount to pre-trial punishment.”
Considering the fact that trial proceedings had not yet commenced and the likelihood of a prolonged trial due to voluminous evidence and multiple witnesses, the court found it appropriate to grant bail with strict conditions.
The High Court allowed the bail applications of the accused on the following conditions:
- One of the sureties must be a blood relative.
- The petitioners must not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses.
- They must not engage in any criminal activity.
- They must provide their residence details in Bhubaneswar and their permanent address, subject to verification.
- They must submit their active mobile numbers and inform the court of any changes.
- They must not leave Bhubaneswar without court permission.
- Their passports must be surrendered to the trial court or affidavits submitted if they do not possess passports.
- They must be present at every trial hearing and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
- The court further noted that any violation of these conditions could lead to the cancellation of bail.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Singh Basta, Advocate; Mr. Prabhu Prasanna Behera, Advocate; Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate; Mr. Sukumar Gourab, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party (State of Odisha): Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Additional Standing Counsel; Mr. J.P. Patra, Additional Standing Counsel; Mr. G.N. Rout, Additional Standing Counsel; Ms. Samapika Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel.
Case Title: Bhim & Others v. State of Odisha
Case Numbers: BLAPL No. 1714 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4272 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4381 of 2024, BLAPL No. 4383 of 2024, and BLAPL No. 4662 of 2024
Bench: Justice Savitri Ratho
[Read/Download order]
