Rajasthan High Court Rejects Third Bail Plea Of Cyber Fraud Accused Amid Rise In Online Scams

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected the third bail applications filed by two accused in a cybercrime case, observing that digital scams have emerged as one of the most insidious forms of cybercrime amid a noticeable rise in online frauds.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that phishing scams targeting bank customers were among the most widespread cybercrimes.

“Cyber criminals steal login credentials to access bank accounts and harvest credit and debit card information for financial gain, leading to the victims suffering from significant financial losses.”

For context, the Court was hearing the third bail applications filed by the petitioners in a case registered on the basis of a report lodged by police officials.

Opposing the bail pleas, the State submitted that the petitioners were allegedly involved in cybercrime along with other accused persons. It further submitted that seven similar complaints relating to cybercrime had been lodged against one of the petitioners, Karan Yadav. The State also pointed out that the petitioners' earlier two bail applications had been rejected and there was no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case.

While considering the pleas, the Court recalled its observations while deciding the first bail applications, noting the rise in cybercrimes and online frauds.

“While deciding the first bail application submitted by the petitioners, this Court was of the view that there has been a noticeable rise in cyber crimes and frauds globally, with India witnessing thousands of innocent people falling victim to such scams. Many of them lost substantial amounts of their hard-earned money to frauds carried out via internet. The surge in digital scam cases underscores a troubling trend, with individuals from all walks of life increasingly being targeted.”

Finding no material change in the circumstances and considering the gravity of the offences and the allegations against the petitioners, the Court declined to entertain their third bail applications. It also directed the trial court to make all possible endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously, uninfluenced by the observations made in the bail order.