The Calcutta High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a key accused in the ₹315 crore cyber fraud case involving the Ruia industrial group. alleged fake investment schemes, digital arrest scams, and the layering of proceeds through mule accounts and cryptocurrency wallets. The ruling underscores how Indian courts are increasingly treating the use of cryptocurrency as an aggravating factor when assessing flight risk and the severity of financial crimes.
Justice Jay Sengupta observed that the petitioner could not seek parity with members of the Ruia family, who had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench, because the allegations against him were qualitatively different. The court held that the accused was not merely a beneficiary of the fraud but was alleged to be a prime perpetrator who actively layered proceeds of crime through mule accounts and cryptocurrency wallets.
Court distinguishes accused from Ruia family co-defendants
Rejecting the plea, Justice Sengupta said it was evident that the petitioner was allegedly not only the ultimate beneficiary of the fraud but, unlike certain other co-accused, was also a prime perpetrator of the offence. The court further noted that he was practically caught red-handed while carrying out the alleged fraud and that tainted money had been transmitted to other countries and across different channels, including crypto wallets.
The distinction from the Ruia family co-accused is significant. West Bengal’s Cyber Crime Wing had earlier arrested industrialist Pawan Ruia in connection with the same ₹315 crore interstate fraud, which investigators alleged used 148 shell companies and crypto laundering to move stolen funds abroad. The Ruia family members were granted pre-arrest protection, but the court held that the current petitioner’s direct involvement in fund layering and overseas crypto transfers placed him on a fundamentally different footing.
The scale of the fraud
The petitioner had sought anticipatory bail in connection with Barrackpore Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 57 of 2025, registered under provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to the prosecution, funds from multiple cyber fraud victims were first routed into certain SBI accounts and then siphoned into accounts of Hughli Machineries Private Limited.
Investigators allegedly found 11 current accounts linked to 544 complaints involving approximately ₹97 crore. The wider data from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) reflected 1,379 complaints involving losses of approximately ₹315 crore. The state alleged that the racket had been functioning since 2024 or earlier and had cheated more than 1,000 victims through fake investment schemes, digital arrest frauds, and similar offences.
Crypto transfers and overseas flight risk
The prosecution contended that the petitioner accessed company bank accounts through internet banking on his mobile phone, transferred funds to multiple shell entities and personal accounts, and later converted part of the proceeds into cryptocurrency routed to wallets in jurisdictions such as Saudi Arabia and Dubai in an effort to evade detection. It was also alleged that the IP address used for siphoning funds was traced to the petitioner’s mobile number.
The High Court accepted the state’s argument that the discovery of a wider conspiracy after an earlier FIR involving a single victim could justify registration of a subsequent FIR to uncover the full scale of the alleged fraud. The court took note of several factors in dismissing the bail application: the enormous scale of the allegations, the layering of proceeds across accounts, the use of cryptocurrency for overseas transfers, the apprehension of flight risk, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and existing custody in another case.
The court also rejected a subsequent prayer for stay of the order.
The ruling follows a pattern of Indian courts treating crypto-based fund movement as evidence of sophistication and flight risk. In February this year, the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied bail in a ₹2.65 crore digital arrest scam after investigators traced stolen funds into cryptocurrency purchases. In the same month, the Supreme Court upheld a bail denial in the ₹640 crore cyber fraud case where the Enforcement Directorate traced siphoned money through 5,000 bank accounts and crypto channels to the UAE.
A growing judicial pattern
The Calcutta HC ruling adds to a rapidly growing body of Indian case law where crypto-based fund layering is being treated as an aggravating factor in pre-trial detention decisions. Courts are increasingly citing the speed and cross-border nature of cryptocurrency transfers as evidence that an accused poses a heightened flight risk and is more likely to tamper with evidence or dissipate remaining proceeds if released.
India’s enforcement apparatus has been scaling up its crypto-crime capabilities in parallel. The government’s PRAHAAR counter-terrorism strategy, released in February 2026, specifically flagged the growing use of crypto wallets by criminal networks, and a dedicated darknet and cryptocurrency task force has been established under the Multi-Agency Centre. From April 1, 2026, updated Income Tax provisions now allow authorities to access crypto wallets, emails, and social media during authorized searches.
With over 24 lakh cybercrime complaints filed on the NCRP in 2025 — involving total losses of ₹22,495 crore — and a recovery rate that remains dismal (only ₹60.52 crore returned to victims out of ₹36,448 crore in cumulative reported losses), the judiciary’s willingness to treat crypto layering as a serious factor in bail decisions may represent one of the few deterrents available to Indian authorities at present.
Also Read: India’s MHA Issues Advisory on Trust Wallet Drainer Scams, Names Fake Verification Domains
