Court Rejects Bail for Two Cyber Fraud Accused

GURUGRAM: A city court this week rejected regular bail for two men accused in separate cyber fraud cases, with judges citing the rise in online cheating and the need for a stern approach even when part of the money is returned.

Additional sessions judge Varsha Jain on Thursday heard the bail plea of Arvind Rao, arrested on 20 August this year for alleged involvement in a Rs 55.28 lakh fraud against city resident Manik Ahuja dating to April 2024. Based on Ahuja's complaint, an FIR was registered on 14 April 2025 at the cybercrime police station (east) under sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and section 66D of the Information Technology Act against unidentified suspects. During investigation, police arrested Rao after Rs 4.25 lakh of the defrauded amount was allegedly traced to his bank account.

Account mule claim and a second refusal

Rao told police he had handed over his bank account, cheque book and debit cards to another suspect for a commission of Rs 1,500. Seeking bail, he argued that the trial would take time, the case rested on documentary and electronic evidence, and custodial interrogation was no longer needed. The prosecution opposed release, saying Rao was involved in withdrawing cash for commission and that more arrests were still expected. The court relied on a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had refused bail in a cybercrime matter last year and described such offences as a silent virus that undermines trust and financial security.

In a separate matter, additional sessions judge Sudeep Goel on Wednesday dismissed the bail plea of Saksham, 22, a resident of Jaitpur Extension in south Delhi, arrested on 19 August after part of the proceeds of an Rs 11.16 lakh stock-market investment fraud against city resident Shiv Chauhan allegedly landed in his account. Saksham had returned Rs 2.21 lakh. The victim told the court he had no objection to bail. Counsel argued youth, clean antecedents and the repayment. The court held that merely returning money does not wipe out the offence and that cybercrime accused deserve no soft handling while such cases are rising.

Both refusals keep the accused in custody while investigations continue. For complainants in cyber fraud files, the orders signal that partial repayment and a claim of being only an account holder will not automatically open the jail gate. For police cyber units, the judgments reinforce the line they argued in court: that early release can hinder further arrests when money trails are still being mapped.

The two files are not linked on facts. One turns on an alleged mule account in a large transfer fraud; the other on a stock-tip style investment cheat where part of the money came back. What they share is the court's refusal to treat cybercrime as a soft bail category. That reading will matter for the next round of regular bail applications at the same sessions courts, where defence counsel often lead with repayment and documentary-evidence arguments of the same kind.