CASE ANALYSIS – NISHANT ROY V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2025)

  CASE ANALYSIS – NISHANT ROY V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2025)

Introduction

This case deals with a bail application filed by Nishant Roy, a BBA student, accused in a large-scale cyber fraud involving over ₹1.48 crore, under various provisions of the IPC and Information Technology Act, 2008. The Allahabad High Court assessed the seriousness of cybercrime and its impact on society while deciding the bail.

Facts of the Case

Background of the Offence

The case arises from a large-scale cyber fraud executed between 23rd and 25th April 2024 targeting Smt. Kakoli Das Gupta, a senior citizen.

The fraudsters posed as FedEx courier officials and police officers, falsely informing her that:

A parcel allegedly sent in her name contained illegal items such as narcotics and fake passports.

An investigation had been initiated against her, and to avoid arrest, she had to cooperate financially for verification and clearance.

Execution of the Fraud

Under psychological pressure, the victim:

Transferred multiple sums to various bank accounts as instructed by the fraudsters.

The transactions occurred through her SBI and Yes Bank accounts over three days.

The total defrauded amount was ₹1,48,30,000, siphoned off in multiple tranches.

FIR and Investigation

The victim lodged an FIR on 27.04.2024 detailing the calls, threats, and transaction instructions received.

Investigation revealed:

The fraudsters used pre-activated SIM cards registered under different identities.

Money was routed through layers of accounts and enterprises to mask its trail and avoid detection.

Arrest of Nishant Roy

On 07.05.2024, police arrested Nishant Roy, a BBA student, for his alleged involvement in facilitating the fraud.

From his possession, police recovered:

Three mobile phones suspected to have been used for coordination with co-accused.

Two pre-activated SIM cards, one of which was linked to Sandhu Enterprises’ bank account, where a portion of the victim’s money was transferred.

A cheque book, suggesting potential use for further transactions or opening related accounts.

Prosecution Allegations

The prosecution argued that:

Nishant Roy’s possession of communication devices and linked SIM cards established his role in the organised crime network.

Although his personal bank account was not directly credited with the defrauded money, his facilitation, use of SIMs, and aiding transactions amounted to active participation.

The involvement of his father, who was absconding, indicated a family-based nexus within the syndicate.

Defence Arguments

The defence contended that:

No direct monetary benefit was traced to Nishant Roy’s account.

His arrest was based on mere possession of SIM cards without proving use in fraudulent calls.

Being a student with no prior criminal record, he deserved bail.

Investigation Status at Bail Hearing

At the time of bail hearing:

The charge sheet was yet to be filed.

Multiple co-accused were still absconding.

Digital forensics and bank transaction analyses were ongoing to establish the complete chain of events and funds.

Investigation & Arrest:

Nishant Roy was arrested on 07.05.2024.

He was allegedly linked through recovery of 3 mobile phones, 2 pre-activated SIM cards, and a cheque book.

The prosecution claimed a SIM recovered from him was connected to Sandhu Enterprises’ bank account, where a portion of defrauded funds were transferred.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of allegations under IPC and IT Act provisions.

2. Whether the absence of direct monetary transactions in the applicant’s account negates his complicity in the offence.

Judgement

The Allahabad High Court, after examining the gravity of the allegations, rejected the bail application filed by Nishant Roy. 

The Court emphasised that:

The nature of the offence involved organised cybercrime with a large financial impact, affecting public trust in digital transactions.

The applicant’s alleged involvement was not minimal, as electronic devices and SIM cards recovered from his possession were connected to the fraud.

Granting bail at this stage could interfere with the ongoing investigation, especially since co-accused including his father were still absconding and the entire nexus was yet to be unravelled.

The Court cited precedents stating that economic offences are grave in nature and harm the fabric of society, requiring a stricter approach in bail matters.

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, and the applicant was remanded to judicial custody with liberty to apply afresh after substantial progress in investigation or filing of the charge sheet.

Reasoning

The High Court based its decision on several key legal and factual considerations:

1. Nature and Seriousness of the Offence

Cyber fraud is an offence involving pre-planned, systematic execution, often with interstate and international links.

Such crimes are not only against an individual but against the economy and society as a whole, diminishing public confidence in online banking and telecommunication systems.

2. Prima Facie Evidence

Recovery of three mobile phones, two pre-activated SIM cards, and a cheque book in the applicant’s possession indicated his active role in the offence.

The specific SIM card linked to Sandhu Enterprises’ account, where defrauded money was transferred, established a direct nexus between the applicant and the fraudulent transaction chain.

3. Impact on Investigation

Investigation was at a crucial stage, with co-accused yet to be arrested.

The Court held that releasing the applicant could result in:

Tampering of evidence

Influencing witnesses

Alerting other absconding co-accused, hampering efforts to unearth the full conspiracy.

4. Public Interest and Societal Impact

The victim was a senior citizen, deceived under fear of criminal prosecution, showing a targeted exploitation of vulnerable individuals.

The Court termed cyber fraud as a “silent virus” that corrodes trust and economic security, requiring stringent judicial response to deter such crimes.

5. Legal Principle on Bail in Economic Offences

Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the bench observed that economic offences constitute a class apart, as they:

Involve deep-rooted conspiracies

Cause extensive harm to society at large

Require thorough investigation before considering bail

6. Absence of Direct Monetary Transfer

The applicant argued that no defrauded money was found in his account. However, the Court clarified that:

Direct receipt is not the sole test for involvement.

Active facilitation, use of SIMs/accounts, and being part of the conspiracy suffices for prima facie culpability under IPC and IT Act provisions.

Public Impact:

 Given the victim was a senior citizen and a large sum was siphoned, releasing the accused at this stage could hamper investigation and public confidence.

Investigation Pending:

 Charges were yet to be framed, and investigation was ongoing against absconding co-accused, including the applicant’s father, suggesting deeper involvement.

Evidence Consideration: The linkage of the recovered SIM card to the enterprise receiving defrauded money established a prima facie case.

Conclusion

This case reaffirms that bail in economic offences, especially cyber frauds, is not a right if the crime adversely impacts public interest and investigation is incomplete. Courts adopt a cautious approach in cybercrime matters to ensure justice, deter such offences, and protect vulnerable victims from digital exploitation. The judgement signifies that bail in cybercrime cases is not a matter of routine. Courts prioritise:

Protection of public interest

Completion of investigation without interference

Deterrence against misuse of technology for organised fraud

Hence, unless exceptional circumstances exist, bail is denied in such economic offences until the investigation concludes or sufficient security against the risk of tampering is ensured.

Written  by  Shobha  Tiwari  an  Intern  under  Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.