60-day trial delay under Section 480(6) BNSS does not create automatic right to bail in cyber fraud case: Raj HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely because the trial of a non-bailable case triable by a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence, the accused does not automatically acquire an absolute right to bail under Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Court observed that although the provision intends to ensure speedy trials for under-trial prisoners, it gives discretion to the Magistrate to refuse bail by recording reasons, especially when the allegations are grave or when circumstances justify continued custody.

The order was passed by Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7954/2025, Ajeet Kumar Shukla vs State of Rajasthan, decided on February 27, 2026. cyber

The bail application arose from FIR No. 346/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, Jaipur City (South), for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act. cyber

According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly lured the complainant through a “profit trading plan,” induced him to download a web application, and subsequently withdrew money from the complainant’s account through WhatsApp communications. The prosecution alleged that the total amount transferred from the complainant’s account was Rs.82 lakh, out of which approximately Rs.65–70 lakh was deposited in the bank account of the accused.

Counsel for the accused argued that the offences were triable by a Magistrate and that the accused had been in custody since May 24, 2025. It was contended that charges had been framed on August 18, 2025 and that prosecution evidence had not been recorded even after the expiry of 60 days from the date fixed for evidence. On this basis, the applicant claimed entitlement to bail under Section 480(6) of the BNSS.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accused was involved in serious cyber fraud involving a large amount of money and that about Rs.65–70 lakh of the cheated amount had been deposited in his account. It was also pointed out that four other criminal cases of a similar nature were pending against the accused in different police stations, indicating a pattern of fraudulent conduct.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court held that Section 480(6) of the BNSS cannot be interpreted as conferring an automatic or indefeasible right to bail merely because the trial has not concluded within 60 days. The Court observed that the provision allows the Magistrate to refuse bail by recording reasons in appropriate cases.

The Court referred to earlier decisions explaining that the provision corresponding to Section 437(6) of the CrPC was intended to encourage speedy trials but does not eliminate judicial discretion. The High Court noted that the Magistrate must consider factors such as the nature of the allegations, criminal antecedents of the accused and reasons for delay before granting or refusing bail.

The Court also took note of the increasing menace of cyber fraud in India and referred to the concern expressed by the Supreme Court in the suo motu proceedings titled “In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents,” highlighting the seriousness of digital financial crimes.

In the present case, the Court observed that the allegations involved large-scale online fraud and that multiple criminal cases of similar nature were pending against the accused. Considering the gravity of the offences and the criminal antecedents of the accused, the Court held that the applicant did not deserve the benefit of bail.

While dismissing the bail application, the Court also made significant observations regarding delays in Magistrate courts. It noted that in many cases after framing of charges, proper efforts are not made to secure the attendance of witnesses and that summons issued to witnesses often remain unexecuted without adequate follow-up.

Emphasizing the importance of speedy trials where accused persons remain in judicial custody, the Court directed that Magistrate courts across Rajasthan should make every possible effort to conclude trials in non-bailable cases within 60 days from the first date fixed for prosecution evidence after framing of charges.

The Court further directed District and Sessions Judges across the State to monitor such cases and ensure that effective steps are taken to secure the presence of witnesses and avoid unnecessary adjournments. A copy of the order was directed to be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for circulation to all District and Sessions Judges in Rajasthan for compliance.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application filed by the accused.

Case Title
Ajeet Kumar Shukla vs State of Rajasthan

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7954/2025

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench
Hon’ble Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali

Date of Order
27 February 2026

Advocates
For the Petitioner
Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma

For the Respondent
Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor

Judgments Relied Upon
Ankit Bansal vs Union of India, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No.12967/2025, order dated 16.10.2025.
Banwari Lal Kushwah vs State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.12083/2024, order dated 04.11.2024.
Sarafuddin Ayub Sheikh vs State of Haryana (2025:PHHC:161686).
Anwar Hussain vs State of Rajasthan (2007) 1 RLW 12 (Raj.).
Devraj Maratha vs State of M.P., 2018 SCC Online MP 151.
Robert Lendi vs The Collector of Customs and Another, 1987 CriLJ 55.
Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh, SLP (Crl.) No.1314/2025.
Nehul Prakashbhai Shah vs State of Gujarat, (2012) 07 GUJ CK 0032