The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused in a cyber-fraud and money-laundering case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, holding that a mere failure to join the investigation in compliance with two notices is not a relevant factor to deny bail if the agency chose not to arrest the accused prior to the filing of the charge-sheet.

The matter arose out of a pan-India digital arrest extortion racket where the applicant was subsequently arraigned as a key syndicate member after his registered mobile number was allegedly found linked to the IP logs of a fraudulent beneficiary bank account.

However, noting his limited role in the FIR and the fact that the entire case relies heavily on already secured electronic evidence, the Court ruled that making a formal arrest post-investigation serves no logical purpose.

The Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee held, "As such, the applicant was never arrested prior to the filing of the charge-sheet. In view thereof, mere not joining investigation in compliance of two notices by the applicant is not such a relevant factor. It was open for the investigating agency to have taken recourse to the coercive measures available in law for securing presence of the applicant if it was so significant, more so, whence the applicant herein is not named in the FIR and limited/ no-direct role (as reproduced in para no.3 above) has been ascribed to him in the charge-sheet."

Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain appeared for the Applicant/Accused, while Special Public Prosecutor Vikrant Pachnanda appeared for the CBI.

Brief Facts

The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a First Information Report against unknown persons on the allegations of an elaborate cyber-fraud and money-laundering syndicate operating from India and abroad. The prosecution alleged that the members of the syndicate targeted Indian citizens by impersonating law enforcement and courier officials, and employed the modus operandi of digital arrest and intimidation to extort money.

Upon completion of the investigation concerning the said victim, the investigating agency filed a charge-sheet arraigning the applicant as an accused. The prosecution claimed that the internet banking facility of one of the beneficiary accounts was accessed through an internet connection registered in the applicant's name, and his residential presence at the relevant location was corroborated through call detail records and delivery logs.

Consequently, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued a summons, following which the applicant appeared and sought regular bail, which was rejected by the trial court and subsequently by the Sessions Court.

Contentions of the Parties

The Applicant contended that he was never arrested by the investigating agency during the entire course of the investigation and that he voluntarily appeared before the trial court in response to the summons. It was further urged that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report, had a limited or negligible role ascribed to him in the charge-sheet, and that the entire case rested on documentary and electronic evidence already in the custody of the state. Furthermore, it was argued that other co-accused persons, who were attributed far more significant roles, had already been enlarged on bail.

The CBI opposed the bail application on the grounds that further investigation regarding the applicant and other victims was actively ongoing. It was contended that the applicant had failed to join the investigation despite being served with notices, and that his custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the deeper conspiracy of the cyber-fraud syndicate.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that the investigating agency itself did not deem it necessary to arrest the applicant during the entire span of the investigation, and he was taken into custody only after the charge-sheet was filed and his bail application was rejected.

Relying upon settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Court noted that once the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet is preferred, making a formal arrest serves no logical purpose.

The Court further observed, "Moreover, as borne out from the records, the whole case of the prosecution substantially hinges/ rests on documentary and electronic evidence(s), all of which are already seized and is/are in the custody of the investigating agency, and there hardly being any scope for the applicant to tamper with it/ them. Further, it is informed that other co-accused persons who have been attributed comparatively more significant role have already been granted bail."

It was also noted that the applicant's voluntary appearance before the Magistrate pursuant to summons was a vital factor, and since co-accused persons with more egregious roles had already been granted bail, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of regular bail on the principles of parity and the settled rule that the object of bail is merely to secure the presence of the accused during trial.

Accordingly, the applicant was released on regular bail.

Cause Title: Raju Kumar Manjhi v. Central Bureau of Investigation [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5392]

Appearances:

Applicant: Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, Advocate Nalin Tripathi, Advocate Nishank Tripathi, Advocate Nischal Tripathi, Advocate Harshita Sukhija

Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate Mukul Katyal

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: