Cyber Fraud Accused Who Is 'Prime Perpetrator' Cannot Claim Parity With Beneficiaries Who Received Bail: Calcutta High Court

"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," Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a prime perpetrator of a massive cyber fraud racket cannot claim parity with co-accused beneficiaries who were previously granted anticipatory bail.

A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta observed that economic offences involving digital arrest scams and crypto-siphoning affect the very "economic fabric of the society" and require cautious judicial intervention. The Court noted that when a larger conspiracy is unearthed, the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail must be exercised sparingly.

The petitioner, Rahul Verma, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a cybercrime case involving allegations of fake investment schemes and "digital arrest" scams. While the petitioner was already in custody for an earlier 2024 case, a subsequent FIR was registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station uncovering a humongous fraud involving approximately Rs. 315 crores and over 1,000 victims. The petitioner argued that since the primary beneficiaries of the funds—members of the Ruia family—had been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate bench, he was entitled to similar relief on the grounds of parity.

The primary question before the Court was whether a petitioner identified as the main orchestrator of a cyber fraud could claim parity with co-accused who were merely beneficiaries of the proceeds. The Court was also called upon to determine if a second FIR is maintainable when a subsequent investigation unearths a larger expanse of a previously reported crime.

Maintainability Of Second FIR In Larger Conspiracies

The Court addressed the petitioner’s contention that a second FIR for the same period was impermissible. It held that it is settled law that when a larger conspiracy is unearthed at a subsequent stage, beyond a single instance of fraud alleged by one victim, a further FIR can be registered. The bench noted that this is essential to unravel the true expanse of the fraud and the multi-layered network of transactions involved.

Court Distinguishes Between Perpetrator and Beneficiary

Rejecting the plea for parity with the Ruia family members, the Court observed that the petitioner stands on a distinct footing. While the co-accused were allegedly the beneficiaries of the tainted money, the petitioner was described as the "prime perpetrator" who actively executed the fraud. The bench emphasized that a co-accused who is only a beneficiary might be treated differently than one who is practically "caught red-handed" through digital footprints.

"The 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."

Economic Offences As A Separate Class Of Crime

Justice Sengupta placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, noting that economic offences constitute a separate class. The Court observed that such crimes affect the economic fabric of society and numerous unsuspecting victims. Consequently, the bench held that while anticipatory bail is not barred, it must be granted only after exercising extreme care and caution in such high-stakes financial matters.

"Economic offences affecting a large number of individuals stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society."

Use of Technology To Evade Law Enforcement

The Court took serious note of the prosecution's evidence regarding the petitioner’s mobile phone and IP address being used to operate eleven different bank accounts. The judgment highlighted how proceeds of crime were converted into cryptocurrency and transferred to countries like Saudi Arabia and Dubai. This "deftness in using modern technology" to evade National Law Enforcement Agencies was cited as a significant factor in denying relief.

"The petitioner was, thus, not only a substantial beneficiary of such crime, but also a prime perpetrator of the fraud."

Risk Of Absconding and Criminal Antecedents

The bench further observed that the petitioner’s technological proficiency increased the possibility of him fleeing the country. It was also noted that the petitioner had a prior criminal record and was already in custody for related offences. Given the "humongous proportion" of the fraud and the incriminating materials in the case diary, the Court found no merit in the application.

The Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, concluding that the petitioner’s role as the main orchestrator of an international cyber-fraud racket disentitled him to discretionary relief. The bench also rejected a subsequent prayer by the petitioner’s counsel for a stay on the operation of the dismissal order.

Date of Decision: 22 April 2026