Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Cyber Crime Case under BNSS: Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Date of Judgment: 03.12.2025

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13750/2025, Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, has granted regular bail to a 22-year-old accused booked in a cyber-fraud case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The order dated 03.12.2025 was passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain while exercising powers under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 

The case arose from FIR No. 07/2024 registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Baran, District Baran. The prosecution has invoked Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 along with Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act, provisions typically attracted in cases involving cheating, impersonation and fraudulent electronic transactions. The investigation apparently traced substantial online financial movement, and the State specifically highlighted that several complaints had been lodged against the accused on the National Cyber Crime Portal on the helpline number 1930. This background was pressed by the prosecution to oppose the bail plea and to suggest that the accused was part of a wider pattern of cyber fraud. 

On the other side, counsel for the accused-applicant emphasised personal and procedural factors rather than contesting the merits of the allegations at this stage. It was submitted that Kamlesh Kumar, aged about 22 years, is the sole breadwinner of his family and that he has already undergone about two and a half months of incarceration. The defence also pointed out that the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and that the case is triable by a Magistrate, and therefore prolonged pre-trial custody would serve no useful purpose. These submissions were aimed at bringing the case within the settled parameters of bail jurisprudence, where the nature of offence, stage of investigation, length of custody and the profile of the accused are all relevant considerations. 

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application and relied on two principal aspects. First, the existence of multiple complaints on the National Cyber Crime Portal was presented as an indicator of repetitive or large-scale fraudulent conduct. Second, the prosecution stressed that the “financial transaction of enormous amount” involved in the case warranted continued custody. Though the order does not detail the sums involved, the court clearly had before it material suggesting that the case was not a petty or isolated incident. The State thus sought to treat the matter as a serious economic offence in the digital space, an area where courts are increasingly cautious, keeping in mind the rise of online frauds and the difficulty in securing digital evidence. 

After hearing both sides, the High Court balanced the competing considerations of individual liberty and the interests of effective prosecution. The Court specifically recorded that the accused is 22 years old, is the sole bread earner of his family, has been in custody for about two and a half months, that the charge-sheet has already been filed and that the case is triable by a Magistrate. These factors show that the Court applied the familiar “triple test” of bail in a practical manner: once investigation is complete and the accused is not shown to be a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence, continued detention becomes more difficult to justify, particularly when the trial forum is a Magistrate’s court. The Court also consciously refrained from commenting on the merits or demerits of the allegations, thereby ensuring that the trial remains uninfluenced and that the bail order does not prejudge the evidence. 

In this backdrop, the Court held that it was inclined to enlarge the accused on bail. Exercising powers under Section 483 BNSS, which broadly corresponds to the earlier Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the High Court’s inherent authority to grant bail, the application was allowed. Kamlesh Kumar was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The condition regarding regular appearance before the trial court on all dates of hearing reinforces that bail is a conditional liberty, and that the accused remains answerable to the process of law throughout the trial.

This order is significant for cyber-crime prosecutions under the new BNS–BNSS framework. Even where multiple online complaints and substantial financial transactions are stated to be involved, the Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that pre-trial incarceration cannot be treated as a substitute for punishment. The judgment shows that once the investigation is complete and the accused has spent a reasonable period in custody, bail will ordinarily follow unless there are strong reasons on record to believe that release will obstruct justice. The emphasis on youth, sole breadwinner status and Magistrate-triable nature of the offence illustrates that human and socio-economic considerations continue to play an important role in bail decisions, even in technologically complex economic offences.

For practitioners, this decision from the Jaipur Bench underscores that bail applications in cyber-crime matters should carefully highlight completion of investigation, length of custody, the forum of trial and the personal circumstances of the accused, while assuring the court on cooperation and regular attendance. Simultaneously, the State is reminded that mere reference to large financial transactions or multiple complaints, without concrete material to show risk of absconding or interference with evidence, may not be sufficient to defeat a well-founded plea for bail under Section 483 BNSS.

Read Complete Order Here

By Advocate Bhuvnesh Kumar Goyal