Bail Is the Rule, Not Jail: Bombay Sessions Court Grants Bail in Rs. 1.93 Crore Cyber Fraud Case

The Sessions Court at Greater Bombay has granted regular bail to an accused, who was arrested in connection with a cyber fraud case involving an alleged amount of Rs. 1.93 crore registered with the Cyber Police Station, Western Division, Bandra.

The bail was granted by Additional Sessions Judge Amit Anant Laulkar while allowing Criminal Bail Application No. 83 of 2026 filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The applicant had been arrested in connection with FIR No. 137 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 61, 318(4), 319(2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

As per the prosecution case, during the period between April 12 and April 15, 2025, the informant received messages from a mobile number impersonating the director of the company, Sheetal Shetty. The sender allegedly succeeded in gaining the informant’s confidence and instructed the transfer of Rs. 1,93,06,000 from the company’s account maintained with State Bank of India to an ICICI Bank account.

It was subsequently discovered that the communication was fraudulent and that the company had been deceived into transferring the said amount, following which the FIR came to be registered.

During the course of investigation, the role of the present applicant was alleged to have surfaced, leading to his arrest and continued custody.

Seeking regular bail on the ground of change in circumstances, the applicant submitted that the investigation had been completed and the final report had already been filed before the competent court. It was contended that the entire disputed amount had been transferred to the account of a co accused and that the present applicant was not the direct beneficiary of the alleged transaction.

The defence further submitted that no recovery was effected at the instance of the applicant and that continued incarceration was unwarranted when the prosecution case rested largely on documentary material already collected.

The applicant also invoked the principle of parity, pointing out that co accused including Aryan Mishra, Ujjwal Raj Avadesh Kumar Singh and Aditya Shinde, who were alleged to have a more substantive role in the offence, had already been granted bail by the Sessions Court.

It was argued that the applicant had been in custody for over six months and that no useful purpose would be served by his further detention, particularly when he was willing to cooperate with the trial and abide by any conditions imposed.

The State opposed the bail application, contending that the offence involved serious economic fraud of a substantial monetary value and that there existed a likelihood of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence if released.

The prosecution maintained that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant and urged the Court to consider the gravity of the allegations while deciding the application.

After hearing the parties, the Court examined the settled principles governing the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. The Court referred to a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, including Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), reiterating that while discretion must be exercised judiciously, bail cannot be denied as a matter of course solely on the basis of the seriousness of allegations.

On the factual matrix, the Court noted that except for the offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS, all other offences alleged were bailable in nature and triable by a Magistrate.

The maximum punishment prescribed did not extend to death or life imprisonment.

The Court further observed that the investigation, insofar as the applicant was concerned, stood completed and that nothing further remained to be recovered or discovered at his instance.

Significantly, the Court recorded that the alleged amount of Rs. 1.93 crore had been credited to the account of a co-accused and that the applicant was not the direct beneficiary of the transaction.

The Court observed that the role attributed to the applicant was comparatively limited and did not indicate that he was the principal architect or mastermind of the alleged fraud. The order noted that no material was placed on record to suggest that the applicant had procured fake bank accounts or had derived monetary gain from the offence.

The Court further took into account that the prosecution case was largely documentary in nature and that the relevant material had already been placed before the trial court.

Observing that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, the Court held that prolonged incarceration of the applicant after completion of investigation would not advance the cause of justice.

Addressing the prosecution’s apprehension regarding witness tampering, the Court held that no specific material had been brought on record to substantiate such concerns. It observed that any such apprehension could be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions, rather than by continued detention.

The Court reiterated that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to impose a punitive measure prior to conviction.

Emphasising the constitutional mandate of personal liberty under Article 21, the Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail the exception, even in cases involving economic offences, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The Court held that mere gravity of the offence or the magnitude of the alleged amount, by itself, cannot justify continued incarceration when the investigation is complete and the accused is not shown to be a flight risk.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of Akshay Gorakhanath Shelake on a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.

The Court imposed several conditions, including attendance before the trial court on all dates, monthly reporting before the Cyber Police Station, surrender of passport, restriction on leaving the country without prior permission, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or indulging in similar offences. Provisional cash bail was also granted for a limited period.

Advocate Shirish Desai appeared for the applicant, while the State was represented by APP Abhijit Gondwal.

Case Title: Akshay Gorakhanath Shelake v. State of Maharashtra

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge Amit Anant Laulkar

Date of Judgment: 28.01.2026