Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
BAIL MATTER 2350/25
STATE VS SAMEER GAUDA @ GAUDA SAMEER
FIR NO. 78/2025
BAIL MATTER 2350/25
STATE VS SAMEER GAUDA @ GAUDA SAMEER
FIR NO. 78/2025
PS : CYBER, SOUTH WEST
U/S 318 (4) & 319 (2) BNS
06.01.2026
Present : Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
Sh. Umesh K. Burnwal, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
IO HC Sanjay in person.
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION U/S 483 BNSS
1. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/accused
Sameer Gouda @ Gouda Sameer in the aforesaid FIR. The applicant has
been in judicial custody since 07.12.2025, and his previous bail application
was dismissed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Patiala
House Courts, vide order dated 24.12.2025.
2. Briefly, the facts as emerging from the record are that the complainant, Arun
S/o Satpal, a sanitation worker residing at 47/60, East Mehram Nagar, Delhi
Cantt, Delhi, lodged a complaint alleging that on 25.03.2025, he received a
fraudulent call from mobile number 9932158591, wherein the caller, posing
as a representative of the BSES Electricity Department, induced him to
download a malicious .APK file via WhatsApp number 8981489267. This
led to unauthorized access to his bank details, resulting in fraudulent
transactions totaling 2,50,000/- from his Canara Bank Account No.	₹
-- 1 of 6 --
2
BAIL MATTER 2350/25
STATE VS SAMEER GAUDA @ GAUDA SAMEER
FIR NO. 78/2025
8463101015989. Out of this amount, 2,00,000/- was credited to Axis Bank	₹
Credit Card No. 4700-XXXX-XXXX-9861, belonging to one Panchariya
Ashish Meghraj. The applicant is alleged to have facilitated the withdrawal
of this amount through his Cash Service Portal (CSP) registered with ROI
Net Solutions Pvt. Ltd., retaining a commission and transferring the
remainder to accounts provided by an associate named Vinod Mandal.
3. The applicant was arrested on 07.12.2025, nearly 80 days after the
registration of the FIR on 17.09.2025. The co-accused Panchariya Ashish
Meghraj was examined, bound down under Section 35(3) BNSS, and not
arrested. The investigation reveals that the applicant operates a legitimate
CSP for cash services and claims no knowledge of the fraudulent origin of
the funds. His mobile devices and statement have been seized, and no further
recovery is pending.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated without evidence of mens rea or direct
involvement in the cheating. He emphasized that the complainant has
entered into a voluntary compromise, receiving 1,00,000/- towards	₹
settlement, as evidenced by the Compromise Deed dated 24.12.2025 and
payment receipt (Annexure-3). The complainant has no objection to the
grant of bail. Further, the applicant has no previous criminal involvement, is
a permanent resident of Surat with deep societal roots, and is the sole
breadwinner of his family. On parity, since the principal beneficiary
(Panchariya Ashish Meghraj) was not arrested, the applicant deserves
similar treatment. The investigation is documentary in nature, with all
-- 2 of 6 --
3
BAIL MATTER 2350/25
STATE VS SAMEER GAUDA @ GAUDA SAMEER
FIR NO. 78/2025
evidence already collected, and continued custody would violate Article 21
of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on the cardinal principle
that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," as enunciated in Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and other precedents.
5. Per contra, Ld. Additional PP for the State, along with the IO, initially
opposed the bail on grounds that the offence involves a wider cyber fraud
network, co-accused (including Vinod Mandal) are absconding, the credit
card used in the offence is yet to be recovered, and further verification of
beneficiaries is required. Reference was made to the gravity of cyber crimes
and the potential for the applicant to tamper with evidence or abscond.
However, upon specific query by this Court, the IO present in court affirmed
that the compromise between the parties has been verified, the payment of
1,00,000/- to the complainant has been made, and the complainant has no	₹
objection to the bail. The IO also confirmed that the applicant has no
previous criminal record or involvement in similar offences.
6. Having considered the submissions, perused the record, and examined the
relevant legal principles, this Court is of the view that the applicant is
entitled to bail. The offences under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) BNSS
pertain to cheating and dishonest inducement, which are triable by the
Magistrate.
7. A key factor is the compromise effected between the parties. While the Ld.
JMFC dismissed the bail relying on Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee
(2004) 3 SCC 388, which holds that bail cannot be granted solely on the
-- 3 of 6 --
4
BAIL MATTER 2350/25
STATE VS SAMEER GAUDA @ GAUDA SAMEER
FIR NO. 78/2025
assurance of compromise under the Cr.P.C. framework (now BNSS), the
present case is distinguishable. Here, the compromise is not a mere
assurance but has been executed: payment of 1,00,000/- has been made,	₹
affirmed by the complainant and verified by the IO in court. In cases of
economic offences like cheating, where the victim has been compensated
and expresses no objection, courts have discretion to consider this as a
mitigating factor for bail, without prejudice to the trial. Reference may be
made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that compromises in non-heinous offences
can influence bail decisions, especially when they restore the victim's
position and promote justice.
8. Further, the applicant's lack of previous criminal involvement is undisputed,
as confirmed by the IO. This aligns with the guidelines in Satender Kumar
Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, emphasizing that bail should be granted
where the accused has clean antecedents, the investigation is substantially
complete, and there is no risk of flight or tampering. The evidence is
primarily documentary (bank records, CDRs, transaction trails), already in
the prosecution's possession. No custodial interrogation is now required, and
the applicant's cooperation during investigation militates against further
detention.
9. On parity, the co-accused Panchariya Ashish Meghraj, whose credit card
was directly involved, was merely bound down and not arrested. Denying
bail to the applicant, whose role appears facilitative rather than primary,
would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
-- 4 of 6 --
5
BAIL MATTER 2350/25
STATE VS SAMEER GAUDA @ GAUDA SAMEER
FIR NO. 78/2025
10. The apprehensions of the prosecution regarding tampering or
absconding can be addressed through appropriate conditions. There is no
material to suggest the applicant poses a threat to witnesses or evidence.
Prolonged incarceration would infringe upon his right to personal liberty
under Article 21, particularly when bail is the norm in such cases, as
reiterated in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40.
11. In view of the foregoing, the bail application is allowed. The
applicant/accused Sameer Gouda @ Gouda Sameer is directed to be released
on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of 20,000/- with one surety of like	₹
amount, to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to
the following conditions:
a) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission
of the Trial Court.
b) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when required and cooperate in the investigation.
c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact, threaten, or
influence the complainant or any witnesses.
d) The applicant shall not indulge in any similar criminal activity.
e) The applicant shall provide his current mobile number and address
to the IO and inform of any change forthwith.
f) Violation of these conditions may lead to cancellation of bail.
-- 5 of 6 --
6
BAIL MATTER 2350/25
STATE VS SAMEER GAUDA @ GAUDA SAMEER
FIR NO. 78/2025
13. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits
of the case.
14.Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned for
compliance.
15. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties.
(SAURABH PRATAP SINGH LALER)
ASJ-05/New Delhi District
PHC / New Delhi / 06.01.2026
-- 6 of 6 --