Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No. 1361/2026
State Vs. Sudha Srivastava
FIR No. 85/2023
Bail Application No. 1361/2026
State Vs. Sudha Srivastava
FIR No. 85/2023
U/s 420/120B IPC & Sections 66C/66D IT Act
PS Cyber South West
16.06.2026
Present : Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
Sh. Satish K. Birla, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
ORDER
1. By way of the present application filed under Section 483 BNSS (corresponding
to Section 439 Cr.P.C.), the applicant/accused Sudha Srivastava seeks grant of
regular bail in FIR No. 85/2023 registered at PS Cyber South West for offences
punishable under Sections 420/120-B IPC and Sections 66C & 66D of the
Information Technology Act.
BRIEF
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the present FIR was registered
pursuant to investigation relating to a cyber fraud/digital arrest scam wherein
victims were allegedly cheated through fraudulent means and substantial amounts
of money were siphoned through various bank accounts used as part of a larger
criminal conspiracy.
3. The prosecution alleges that the applicant was an active participant in the
conspiracy and that bank accounts connected with her were utilized for receipt,
routing and layering of cheated amounts. Investigation was conducted and
charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned Court. The matter is
presently pending trial.
-- 1 of 6 --
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No. 1361/2026
State Vs. Sudha Srivastava
FIR No. 85/2023
4. The record further reveals that the present application is a successive bail
application. The applicant had earlier sought anticipatory bail, regular bail before
the Trial Court, Sessions Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on
multiple occasions.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 54-year-old woman
having deep roots in society and clean antecedents.
6. It is argued that the applicant is suffering from serious medical ailments including
Type-II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Double Vessel Coronary Artery
Disease, Lumbar Spondylosis, Distal Lower Limb Sensorimotor
Radiculoneuropathy and Vascular Parkinsonism. It is submitted that she
underwent PTCA with stenting and other medical procedures during
incarceration and continues to require specialized treatment.
7. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and that no
useful purpose would be served by keeping her in judicial custody. Ld. Counsel
contends that the investigation stands completed and charge-sheet has already
been filed.
8. It is argued that the applicant has remained in custody for a considerable period
and that the trial is proceeding slowly and is likely to take substantial time to
conclude.
9. Ld. Counsel further submits that the applicant has cooperated with the
investigation, has never misused liberty granted to her during interim bail periods
and there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with evidence.
10. Reliance is also placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, Hussainara Khatoon
Vs. State of Bihar and A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak to contend that prolonged
-- 2 of 6 --
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No. 1361/2026
State Vs. Sudha Srivastava
FIR No. 85/2023
incarceration pending trial militates against the constitutional guarantee of
personal liberty and speedy trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
11. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State opposes the bail application and
submits that the allegations pertain to a grave and organized cyber fraud
involving cheating of innocent persons through digital means.
12. It is submitted that the applicant is not a mere bystander and that
investigation has revealed her direct connection with bank accounts through
which cheated amounts were received and further transferred.
13. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the present application is a successive bail
application and several earlier applications filed by the applicant before different
courts have already been dismissed or withdrawn.
14. It is argued that no substantial change in circumstances has occurred after
rejection of earlier bail applications and, therefore, the present application is not
maintainable on identical grounds.
15. It is further submitted that the applicant's medical condition has repeatedly
been considered by competent courts and she was granted interim bail on medical
grounds whenever required. Adequate medical treatment is being provided
through jail authorities and government hospitals.
16. It is contended that considering the gravity of allegations, the role
attributed to the applicant, the magnitude of the cyber fraud and the societal
impact of such offences, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of
bail.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
17. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and
carefully perused the record.
-- 3 of 6 --
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No. 1361/2026
State Vs. Sudha Srivastava
FIR No. 85/2023
18. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the present application is a
successive bail application.
19. The record reveals that the applicant's anticipatory bail application was
dismissed by the Sessions Court on 16.02.2024. Thereafter, her first regular bail
application was dismissed by the concerned Court on 28.05.2024. The first
regular bail application before the Sessions Court was dismissed on 05.07.2024.
The second regular bail application before the Sessions Court was dismissed on
23.08.2024. The second regular bail application before the Trial Court was
dismissed on 24.09.2024 observing that there was no change in circumstances.
The third bail application before the Trial Court was dismissed on 09.04.2025.
Subsequent proceedings before the Sessions Court and the Hon'ble High Court
also did not result in grant of regular bail on merits.
20. The settled legal position is that successive bail applications can be
entertained only where there is a substantial change in circumstances after
rejection of the earlier application. Repeated filing of bail applications on
identical grounds is impermissible.
21. The principal grounds pressed before this Court are the medical condition
of the applicant, completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet and prolonged
incarceration.
22. So far as the medical condition of the applicant is concerned, the record
itself shows that the said aspect has repeatedly been considered by various courts.
The applicant was granted interim bail on medical grounds on more than one
occasion. The medical records placed on record further show that she has been
receiving treatment through competent medical institutions and jail authorities.
23. The fact that interim medical bail was granted from time to time does not
constitute a fresh circumstance. Rather, it demonstrates that the medical condition
-- 4 of 6 --
Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No. 1361/2026
State Vs. Sudha Srivastava
FIR No. 85/2023
of the applicant had already been taken into account by competent courts while
considering her entitlement to temporary release.
24. This Court does not find any material indicating that necessary medical
treatment cannot be provided to the applicant while in judicial custody. No
exceptional circumstance has been shown which would persuade this Court to
take a view different from the one consistently adopted in earlier proceedings.
25. The contention regarding completion of investigation and filing of charge-
sheet has also been considered. While filing of charge-sheet is undoubtedly a
relevant consideration, it is equally settled that filing of charge-sheet by itself
does not create an indefeasible right to bail.
26. The allegations in the present case pertain to a serious cyber fraud/digital
arrest scam. Cyber-enabled economic offences have assumed alarming
proportions in recent years. Such offences are committed in a sophisticated
manner, affect a large number of unsuspecting victims and undermine public
confidence in digital banking and financial systems.
27. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates the
involvement of the applicant in accounts through which cheated funds were
allegedly routed. At the stage of bail, the Court is not required to conduct a
meticulous examination of evidence; however, the nature of allegations and the
prima facie material cannot be ignored.
28. This Court has also examined the orders of the Hon'ble High Court relied
upon by the applicant. A perusal thereof shows that the applicant was not granted
regular bail on merits. Certain proceedings were withdrawn while in another
proceeding liberty was granted to approach the Trial Court. Such liberty cannot
be construed as a judicial finding in favour of the applicant nor can it be treated
as a change in circumstance warranting grant of bail.
-- 5 of 6 --
Page 6 of 6
Bail Application No. 1361/2026
State Vs. Sudha Srivastava
FIR No. 85/2023
29. The judgments relied upon by the applicant relating to personal liberty,
presumption of innocence and speedy trial undoubtedly lay down salutary
principles. However, those principles must be balanced against the nature of
accusations, the role attributed to the accused and the overall facts of the case.
30. In the present matter, considering the gravity of allegations, the prima facie
material collected during investigation, the repeated rejection of earlier bail
applications, the absence of any substantial change in circumstances and the fact
that medical grounds have already been considered by various courts from time
to time, this Court finds no justification to grant regular bail to the applicant. It
may be noted that about Rs.3.30 crore was syphoned of by accused using the Yes
Bank Account and her another acccount in PNB was used to syphoned of Rs.1.52
crores which shows that he is actively involved in Cyber Crimes.
31. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that no ground is made
out for taking a view different from that adopted in the earlier orders passed by
the competent courts.
FINAL ORDER
32. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present application seeking regular
bail on behalf of applicant/accused Sudha Srivastava is hereby dismissed.
33. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of
the case and the observations made herein are confined solely to adjudication of
the present bail application.
34. Copy of the order be given dasti and be also sent to Jail Superintendent
concerned for information.
(SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER)
Vacation Judge / ASJ-05
New Delhi District
PHC / New Delhi / 16.06.2026
-- 6 of 6 --