Bail in alleged share fraud matter granted where chats and call records did not directly link the applicant to the offence.

Bail was granted in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy concerning dormant shares and fake demat accounts because the material did not directly link the applicant to the fraud. WhatsApp chats and call detail records showed contact with the main accused, but that alone was insufficient to establish a major role. A statement under Section 164 CrPC described how the main accused opened fake accounts without attributing any role to the applicant. In the absence of evidence that the applicant benefited from the activity or had a direct involvement, the Court found bail justified on conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in the absence of sufficient material directly linking him to the alleged offences.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy connected with dormant shares and fake demat accounts. The material noted by the Court consisted mainly of WhatsApp chats and call detail records showing contact between the applicant and the main , but these facts by themselves were found insufficient to establish a major role in the alleged fraud. The Court also noticed that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 detailed the manner in which the main accused opened fake accounts, without attributing any role to the applicant. In the absence of material showing that the applicant benefitted from the alleged activity or had a direct role in the incident, the Court found that a case for bail was made out.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant on conditions.

---