Rajasthan HC Rejects Bail in SBI Insurance Cyber Fraud, Directs Police to Recover Investigation Cost from Complainant

Blaming the complainant's greed for enabling the fraud, Justice Ravi Chirania dismissed two bail applications and directed the Dausa Superintendent of Police to recover the cost of investigation from the victim and deposit it in the Rajasthan Police Welfare Fund.

The Rajasthan High Court's Bench at Jaipur on 24 June 2026 dismissed bail applications filed by two accused in a cyber fraud case and issued an unusual direction: the Superintendent of Police, District Dausa, must calculate the cost incurred in investigating the case and recover that amount from the complainant himself. Justice Ravi Chirania, sitting singly, reasoned that the complainant — a government school teacher drawing a salary of more than Rs 80,000 per month — had transferred Rs 20,00,000 to the accused across multiple transactions out of “uncontrolled greed,” making the State machinery bear the burden of investigating consequences of his own conduct. The two bail applications, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), were taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

The Cyber Fraud Case at Dausa

FIR No. 3/2026, dated 22 January 2026, was registered at the Cyber Police Station, District Dausa, against the petitioners and others. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

The first petitioner, Jeet Singh, aged 32, is a resident of Karawal Nagar, North East Delhi, and was present at an address in Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh at the time of arrest. He is now confined in District Jail, Dausa. The second petitioner, Mukesh Kumar, aged 31, hails from Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, and was residing as a tenant in Govindpuri, Okhla, Delhi. He is also in District Jail, Dausa. Their respective bail applications were numbered S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5623/2026 and 6285/2026.

According to the prosecution, the accused operated a scam in the name of an SBI life insurance policy. The complainant, a government teacher, had a policy worth Rs 2,47,000. The accused, through successive transactions and escalating allurements, induced him to transfer a total of Rs 20,00,000 on different occasions. The police filed the charge-sheet on 3 April 2026.

Petitioners' Case for Bail

Mr. Surendra Singh Shekhawat and Mr. Mustaq Ahmed appeared for the petitioners. They argued that the petitioners are innocent, that the allegations of cyber fraud in connection with the SBI life insurance policy are false and baseless, and that no recovery was made from either petitioner during the investigation. Counsel pointed out that the charge-sheet had already been filed, removing the risk of tampering with evidence. They also submitted that neither petitioner has any criminal antecedents.

State's Opposition

Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Ram Singh Gurjar, appearing for the complainant's side, strongly opposed bail. They drew the court's attention to the scale of the scam: Rs 20,00,000 extracted across multiple transactions by dangling increasing returns after each payment. The State submitted that given the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioners do not deserve bail.

The Court's Reasoning on Bail

Justice Chirania examined the nature of the allegations in the FIR. The court formed a prima facie view that the petitioners, along with other persons, were involved in the cyber scam and extracted approximately Rs 20,00,000 from the complainant. Citing the seriousness of those allegations, the court declined to enlarge either petitioner on bail. Both applications under Section 483, BNSS were dismissed.

The court did not stop at the bail question. It turned its attention to the conduct of the complainant and the broader drain on State resources that cyber fraud investigations entail.

Direction to Recover Investigation Cost from the Complainant

Justice Chirania recorded that the complainant is a government teacher with a monthly salary of more than Rs 80,000. Despite holding a life insurance policy of only Rs 2,47,000, he transferred Rs 20,00,000 to the accused across multiple occasions because each transaction was followed by a promise of an increased return. The court characterised this as evidence of “uncontrolled greed” on the complainant's part.

The order then made a broader observation: the reason behind the successful commission of most cyber crimes is the greed of victims who expect unusually high returns or unclaimed money, and who thereby walk into such traps. The court acknowledged that once such a complaint is made, the State has no option but to set its machinery in motion. However, it held that “precious public money cannot be allowed to be expended in investigating such offences” that occur, prima facie, due to the greed of the complainant.

Acting on that reasoning, the court directed the Superintendent of Police, District Dausa to calculate the cost incurred in the investigation of this case and to recover the same from the complainant. The recovered amount is to be deposited into the Rajasthan Police Welfare Fund, maintained by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan.

The court specified the account details in the order itself: Account Name — Rajasthan Police Welfare Fund; Account Number — 51091398130; Branch — Financial Super Market, Apex Mall, Lalkothi, Jaipur; IFSC Code — SBIN0032060.

A separate copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Superintendent of Police, District Dausa for necessary action.

Outcome

Both S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5623/2026 (Jeet Singh) and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6285/2026 (Mukesh Kumar) were dismissed. Jeet Singh and Mukesh Kumar remain in custody at District Jail, Dausa. The Superintendent of Police, District Dausa is directed to compute the investigation cost and recover it from the complainant, depositing the proceeds in the Rajasthan Police Welfare Fund. The order was passed on 24 June 2026.