Judgment : Jay Sengupta, J. 1. This an application challenging an order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Misc. Case No. 57 of 2025, thereby cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with GR(S) Case No. 255 of 2025 corresponding to Cyber PS/BFS, DD Case No.15 dated 06.03.2025 under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/308(2)/336(2)/336(3)/338/340 of BNS and Sections66E/66D/66 read with Section 43 of the IT Act, 2000. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners were arrested on 10.03.2025 in connection with Cyber PS/BFS, DD Case No.15 dated 06.03.2025 under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/308(2) of BNS and 66E/66D, 66 read with section 43 of IT Act, 2000. On 11.03.2025, the petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate with a prayer for PC till 24.03.2025. On the basis of such prayer, PC was allowed upto 20.03.2025 and the learned Magistrate directed to produce the petitioners on 21.03.2025. On 21.03.2025, the petitioners were again produced with a prayer for PC till 25.03.2025, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate and date was fixed for production on 25.03.2025. On 25.03.2025, the IO prayed for judicial custody of the petitioners and the next date was fixed for 03.04.2025. On 03.04.2025, the learned Magistrate allowed the prayer for bail of the petitioners. It appeared from the order that the learned Magistrate granted bail to one Ryan Iqbal and petitioner no. 4 (Yaser Iqbal) on the ground that CD appeared to be silent since 25.03.2025 and jail interrogation had already been completed on 25.03.2025 and that the bail of the other petitioners were allowed on the ground that there was no further development in investigation and whatever materials of incriminating nature had been collected at the early stage of investigation. Challenging such order granting bail, the investigating officer filed an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioners on 23.05.2025. (after 1 month 20 days from the date of granting bail). The learned Chief Judge allowed the cancellation of bail on two-fold grounds (i) The order was without any reason and (ii) The learned Magistrate had passed the order ignoring the materials on record against the parties. (after 1 month 20 days from the date of granting bail). The learned Chief Judge allowed the cancellation of bail on two-fold grounds (i) The order was without any reason and (ii) The learned Magistrate had passed the order ignoring the materials on record against the parties. It was pertinent to mention that in the instant case what had escaped notice of the learned Judge was that the case was started under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4) 308(2) of BNS and 66E/66D, 66 read with Section 43 of IT Act, 2000, which specified a maximum punishment of all the offences upto 7 years. From the order dated 11.03.2025, it appeared that a prayer was made for adding Section 338, 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS to the instant case, but that was neither allowed nor rejected by the learned Magistrate. It was an admitted fact that the petitioners had not violated any condition. The petitioners never misused liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity. The petitioners had not interfered with the course of investigation and had not attempted to tamper with the evidence. There was no allegation regarding threatening of witnesses, likelihood of fleeing to another country or attempt to go underground or hide themselves beyond the reach of the sureties. The petitioners had suffered entire PC period and on the prayer of the IO, they were remanded to JC. All incriminating materials had already been seized and jail interrogation was also done. That the prayer for cancellation was filed against 4 accused and the investigation officer did not choose to filed the cancellation against Ryad Iqbal, Faiz Ahamed, Jereth Stefen. The following judgements were relied upon: i) Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2025: Kailash Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh , ii) Criminal Appeal No. 2381 of 2025: Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal and Anr. , iii) 2018 11 SCC 713 : Rameshwar Sharma vs Director of Revenue , iv) 2009 11 SCC 392 : Ashoke Kumar vs State of UP , v) 2009 10 SCC 652 : Hazari Lal Das vs State of West Bengal , vi) 2018 16 SCC 511 : X vs State of Telengana , vii) 2015 SCC Online Cal 4416: Md. Raju vs Md. Tobrej and Ors. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor representing the State denies the allegations, relies on the case diary and submits as follows. Raju vs Md. Tobrej and Ors. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor representing the State denies the allegations, relies on the case diary and submits as follows. This case pertained to a transnational cybercrime syndicate operating under the guise of a fake call centre located at Active Acres, 54/10, D.C. Dey Road, Tangra Kolkata – 700015. Credible intelligence and subsequent investigation revealed that this unauthorized establishment was systematically engaged in defrauding foreign nationals, primarily U.S. citizens, through impersonation, coercion, and fraudulent manipulation of computer systems. The fraudsters, impersonating representatives of reputed multinational corporations, contacted victims via VoIP-based calls, threatened them under false pretences, and induced them to make payments for non-existent services, including subscription cancellations and technical support. This resulted in wrongful gain to the perpetrators and wrongful loss to multiple foreign nationals. A YouTube video published by a cybercrime activist operating the channel “Scammer Payback” exposed the presence of the fake call centre at the aforementioned address. The video documented unauthorized remote access to a victim’s computer and revealed the coercive tactics used by the fraudsters. A foreign female national was defrauded of approximately Rs. 8.71 lakh (USD 10,000) during the course of this operation. Technical analysis of the network traffic revealed that accused Yaser Iqbal was actively involved. He used a local IP address, routed via Alliance Broadband to access VoIP services for targeting foreign nationals. The short-duration VoIP call patterns, coupled with high internet consumption and IP logs, confirmed the systematic targeting of multiple victims and established his direct involvement in the conspiracy. Based on the evidence collected, seven accused persons were arrested. Following actionable intelligence, raid was conducted, and the above-named accused persons were arrested. The following significant evidence was recovered and documented. Cash amounting to Rs. 28.41 lakh, suspected to be proceeds of crime, was seized from a location linked to the accused Kurt Mansharamani. Seven laptops, ten smartphones, routers and digital storage devices used in the commission of the offence. Detailed IP logs and Call Detail Records (CDRs) establishing coordinated activity targeting foreign IP addresses VoIP infrastructure. A video from Scammer Payback documented a live fraud interaction with a U.S.-based victim, thereby substantiating the fraudulent modus operandi of the syndicate. Kurt Mansharamani, functioned as the operational supervisor of the fake call centre. He coordinated the activities of junior agents, managed illicit cash flow, and was directly linked to the recovery of Rs. 28.41 lakh in cash. A video from Scammer Payback documented a live fraud interaction with a U.S.-based victim, thereby substantiating the fraudulent modus operandi of the syndicate. Kurt Mansharamani, functioned as the operational supervisor of the fake call centre. He coordinated the activities of junior agents, managed illicit cash flow, and was directly linked to the recovery of Rs. 28.41 lakh in cash. Anubhav Shaw, acted as both caller and closer, initiating scripted conversations with victims and guiding them through fraudulent transactions involving gift cards, wire transfers and remote access software. Md. Shain Neil Mohammed, operated primarily as a closer, taking over victim conversations at critical stages to secure financial fraud. Yasir Iqbal, provided the premises and infrastructure for the illegal operation. He arranged the internet connectivity, physical security, and other logistical support essential for the functioning of the fraudulent call centre. The accused remained in a position to access and tamper with digital evidence, especially those hosted on international cloud servers or remote platforms, thereby posing a serious threat to the investigation. The accused persons Kurt Mansharamani, Anubhav Shaw and Md. Shain Neil Mohammed were also arrested in Cyber PS/DD Case No. 7 dated 03.02.2025, involving similar cyber offences under Sections 66/66C/66D/84B/43 of the IT Act read with Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/336(2)/338/340(2) of the BNS. Given the hierarchical and structured nature of the fraud syndicate, there existed a legitimate apprehension that the accused might influence, threaten, or compromise witnesses. The principal mastermind remained absconding. The accused, being closely linked to him, were in a position to aid his evasion, and obstruct recovery of devices, funds or critical evidence. The offences were of grave and complex nature, involving cross-border fraud, identity theft, cyber intrusion and illegal date extraction, committed with a high level of planning, technical sophistication and criminal intent. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it was most respectfully submitted that the release of the accused persons would prejudice the integrity of the ongoing investigation, facilitate destruction of digital evidence, enable witness tampering and obstruction of justice and embolden similar transnational cybercrime networks. 4. I heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the petitioners and the State, perused the revision petition, the case diary, the written notes of the petitioners and the State. 5. At the outset, one may recall the prime considerations for grant of bail. 4. I heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the petitioners and the State, perused the revision petition, the case diary, the written notes of the petitioners and the State. 5. At the outset, one may recall the prime considerations for grant of bail. Among other things, they are – (a) nature and gravity of the offences alleged; (b) severity of the punishment; (c) the materials available against the accused; (d) the chance of the accused absconding; (e) the chance of an accused threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence; (f) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (g) involvement of the accused in other crimes; and (h) even the number of persons affected by the crime. The above list is not an exhaustive one and one or more of such considerations may weigh with a Judge in deciding the question of grant of bail. On this, reliance may be placed on (i) Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh , (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; (ii) State of UP through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi , (2005) 8 SCC 21 ; (iii) Ram Pratap Yadav vs. Mitra Sen Yadav , (2003) 1 SCC 15 . 6. It is also trite law that a bail granted can be cancelled primarily on two grounds – (i) post bail conduct of the accused and (ii) the order of granting bail itself being bad. The second ground is available only to a superior Court as, among other things, the same Criminal Court cannot review its own order. 7. As would appear from the allegations made in the FIR and the materials available in the case diary in the instant case, charges are exceedingly grave. The allegations are about running fake call centre to dupe unsuspecting individuals and customers of online transactions of different sums of money. As regards the incriminating materials available, a cash amount of Rs. 28.41 lakh suspected to be proceeds of crime linked to the present petitioner was seized. The petitioner was allegedly a key operator in transnational cybercrime syndicate operating under the guise of a fake call centre located at Tangra, Kolkata. The unauthorized establishment was systematically engaged in defrauding foreign nationals, primarily U.S. citizens, through impersonation, coercion and fraudulent manipulation of computer systems. For example, a foreign national was defrauded approximately to the tune of Rs. 8.71 lakhs during such operation. 8. Several accused were arrested. The unauthorized establishment was systematically engaged in defrauding foreign nationals, primarily U.S. citizens, through impersonation, coercion and fraudulent manipulation of computer systems. For example, a foreign national was defrauded approximately to the tune of Rs. 8.71 lakhs during such operation. 8. Several accused were arrested. Apart from the cash, the tools of crime, namely, laptops, smart phones, routers and digital storage devices were seized. Even, a video from Scammer Payback purportedly documented a live fraud interaction with a U.S.-based victim. 9. The present petitioner no. 1 was allegedly the operational supervisor of the fake call centre and coordinated activities of junior agents, managed illicit cash flow and is directly linked to the recovery of the said Rs. 28.41 lakh and odd. The petitioner no.1 allegedly acted as caller and closer, the petitioner no. 3 as a closer, taking over victim interactions and the petitioner no. 4 allegedly provided the premises and the infrastructure. 10. Therefore, the case involves a very serious nature of crime. Evidence available, thus far, is quite substantial and the affected parties could be innumerable. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure that the accused does not flee away from the country or threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence. 11. In other words, all the above facts and circumstances ought to have weighed against the possibility of grant of bail in the first place, that too in a matter of a few days of custody. 12. Nor would it appear that the order granting bail to the petitioner reflected consideration of any of the relevant factors as discussed above. 13. It has been explained on behalf of the State that one of the co-accused was granted bail on medical ground. 14. In any event, there is no logic in the argument that as the bail granted to some other co-accused was not challenged, the bail granted to the present petitioner cannot be challenged. 15. By the very nature of the alleged offence, the complexity involved and the transnational nature of it, it is quite obvious that investigation of the case would require much time and effort. Release of accused on frivolous grounds like lack of progress in between two short dates and without considering the time tested criteria for grant of bail would adversely affect solving of the case or unearthing the true expanse of such fraudulent activities. 16. Release of accused on frivolous grounds like lack of progress in between two short dates and without considering the time tested criteria for grant of bail would adversely affect solving of the case or unearthing the true expanse of such fraudulent activities. 16. That apart, this Court finds that the order cancelling bail was a fairly reasoned one and was passed after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to respond. 17. In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any merit in this application. 18. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. 19. Let the copy of the Case Diary supplied on behalf of the State be returned to the learned counsel for the State. 20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon completion of requisite formalities.