Supreme Court refuses bail in cyber crime case, noting three identical antecedents and directing completion of trial within six months.
The Supreme Court has refused bail to a man accused of cyber crime, taking note of his alleged criminal antecedents while directing the trial court to complete the proceedings within six months.
The Supreme Court on September 23, 2026, refused to grant bail to a man accused in a cyber crime case, observing that “cyber crime is like an addiction, as it is all easy money.” The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran took note of the accused’s alleged identical criminal antecedents while declining his plea for release.
The Court, however, also took note of the slow progress of the trial. Since the accused had been in custody for about one year and only one witness had been examined, the Bench directed that the trial be completed within six months.
The matter arose from a Special Leave Petition challenging an order of the Jharkhand High Court, which had rejected the accused’s bail application. The petitioner is facing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Cyber Crime Special Court at Deoghar.
According to the case details recorded in the proceedings, the accused has been booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including Sections 111(2), 111(3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2), along with Sections 66B, 66C and 84C of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Cyber Crime Allegations Involving Impersonation
The Jharkhand High Court had earlier rejected the bail plea after considering the materials allegedly recovered from mobile phones seized from the accused and his co-accused.
The seized devices allegedly contained material involving impersonation of customer-care services and government-related schemes, including references to Flipkart Customer Care, Amazon Customer Care, Airtel Payment Bank, PhonePe Customer Care and PM Kisan Yojna.
On that basis, the High Court had declined to grant bail. At the same time, in its July 10, 2026 order, the High Court had expected the trial to be completed within six months.
Aggrieved by the denial of bail, the accused approached the Supreme Court. Before the Bench, his counsel submitted that he had remained in custody for approximately one year and that only one witness had been examined during that period.
The petitioner also relied upon the fact that a co-accused had been granted bail after spending around one year in custody. It was further submitted that the petitioner was 26 years old, had a child to look after and had no other source of income.
Supreme Court Takes Note Of Criminal Antecedents
The State opposed the bail plea and informed the Supreme Court that the petitioner had three identical criminal antecedents.
Taking note of this submission, Justice JB Pardiwala made the observation that “cyber crime is like an addiction, as it is all easy money.”
The Bench recorded that it might have considered the petitioner’s plea for bail but for the fact that three identical antecedents had been brought to its notice.
The Court accordingly declined to grant bail and directed the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Interestingly, after the Bench recorded the existence of three identical antecedents, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that he was aware of only one such antecedent. The Supreme Court nevertheless proceeded on the material placed before it and declined the bail request.
Trial To Be Completed Within Six Months
While refusing bail, the Supreme Court did not overlook the delay in the proceedings. The Bench specifically noted that only one witness had been examined so far and directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months from September 23, 2026.
The order thus addresses both aspects of the bail proceedings: the alleged repeated involvement in similar cyber crime cases and the need to prevent prolonged incarceration without timely progress of the trial.
The case is Pintu Das @ Pintu Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand, Diary No. 51817/2026.
The Supreme Court’s order highlights the relevance of an accused’s antecedents while considering bail, while simultaneously emphasising that criminal trials should proceed expeditiously where an accused remains in custody.
For more updates on criminal law, cyber crime and important judicial developments, readers can follow the News section of The Legal Observer.
For further legal updates and video coverage, visit The Legal Observer YouTube channel.
