Bail is the rule and jail is the exception:

The High Court recently granted regular bail to Teena Yadav in a cyber fraud case after observing that prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial cannot be continued indefinitely. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma, while dealing with allegations under Sections 419, 420, 201 and 120B of the IPC read with Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, noted that the petitioner had already remained in custody for more than 15 months and the investigation stood completed.

The case arose from an FIR registered at the Cyber Cell Police Station, Mandi, alleging involvement in a cyber fraud racket operating through online platforms and digital transactions. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons cheated victims under the guise of online investment and service-related schemes. During investigation, offences relating to impersonation, destruction of evidence and criminal conspiracy were also added.

Also Read

GSTAT Rules Section 171 Inapplicable to Fully Post-GST Works Contract

Before the High Court, the petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), contending that the charge sheet had already been filed and no further custodial interrogation was required. It was further submitted that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was primarily documentary and digital in nature, which had already been seized during investigation.

“Pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to become punitive merely because the allegations are serious in nature.”

The High Court observed that though the allegations involved serious economic offences, the exact role and criminal intent of the petitioner would be examined during the course of trial. The Court further noted that continued incarceration without progress in trial would infringe the constitutional right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court pointed out that:

“Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where investigation is complete and trial is likely to take considerable time.”

Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had no previous criminal antecedents and there was no material suggesting any possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence, the Court held that further custody was not warranted. Therefore, the High Court directed release of the petitioner on regular bail subject to furnishing of personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with conditions restricting foreign travel and requiring regular appearance before the Trial Court.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.