Calcutta High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Alleged Mastermind In ₹1000-Crore Cyber Fraud; Says He Was 'Practically Caught Red-Handed'
The Calcutta High Court has refused anticipatory bail to an accused in a massive cyber fraud case allegedly involving fake investment schemes, digital arrest scams and proceeds of crime running into thousands of crores, observing that he was “practically caught red-handed while perpetrating the alleged fraud.”
Justice Jay Sengupta held that the petitioner could not claim parity with members of the Ruia family, who had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench, since the allegations against him were qualitatively different.
Court said that the accused stood on a distinct footing from the co-accused, who earlier secured anticipatory bail, as he was allegedly not merely a beneficiary but a prime perpetrator who layered proceeds through mule accounts and cryptocurrency wallets.
Rejecting the plea, the Court said: “It is evident that the present petitioner was allegedly not only the ultimate beneficiary of the fraud, but, unlike such other co-accused, was also a prime perpetrator of the crime.”
The Court further noted: “The present petitioner was practically caught red-handed while perpetrating the alleged fraud which, in turn, transmitted tainted money even to other countries and into different mediums including crypto currency wallets.”
Justice Sengupta also reiterated that economic offences affecting large sections of society form a separate class requiring caution in bail matters.
“Economic offences affecting a large number of individuals stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society.”
Background
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with Barrackpore Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 57 of 2025, registered under provisions of the Information Technology Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, funds from multiple cyber fraud victims were first routed to certain SBI accounts and then siphoned into accounts of Hughli Machineries Private Limited. Investigators allegedly discovered 11 current accounts linked with 544 complaints involving around ₹97 crore, while wider NCRP data reflected 1,379 complaints with losses of about ₹315 crore.
The State alleged that the racket had been operational since 2024 or earlier, cheating over 1,000 victims through fake investment schemes, digital arrest scams and similar frauds.
The prosecution contended that the petitioner accessed company bank accounts through internet banking using his mobile phone, transferred funds to multiple shell entities and personal accounts, and later converted part of the proceeds into cryptocurrency routed to wallets in jurisdictions such as Saudi Arabia and Dubai to evade detection.
It was also alleged that the IP address used for siphoning funds was traced to the petitioner's mobile number.
The High Court accepted the State's argument that discovery of a wider conspiracy after an earlier FIR involving a single victim could justify registration of a subsequent FIR to uncover the full extent of the fraud.
The Court further took note of the enormous scale of the alleged fraud, layering of proceeds across accounts, use of cryptocurrency and overseas transfers, apprehension of flight risk, and the petitioner's criminal antecedents and existing custody in another case.
Holding that it was not a fit case for pre-arrest protection, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. A subsequent prayer for stay of the order was also rejected.
Case Title: Rahul Verma v. State of West Bengal
Case No: C.R.M.(A) 156 of 2026