Active involvement in organized cyber fraud using mule accounts precludes the grant of regular bail.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, after being arrested in connection with Crime No. 08/2025 at Police Station Range Cyber Crime, Bilaspur

The prosecution alleges that the applicant was part of an organized cyber fraud syndicate involving 82 "mule" bank accounts through which ₹97,83,492/- was fraudulently transacted

Investigations by the Indian Criminal Coordinator Centre revealed that the applicant held a Bank of India account used for 17 suspicious transactions totaling ₹4,39,129/-, with an unexplained balance of ₹52,95,121/-

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, citing the submission of the charge-sheet and the fact that a co-accused had been granted bail by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the gravity of the offenses and the evidence of his role in an organized cyber fraud network

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail

The applicant was charged under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Section 61 (Criminal Conspiracy), Section 317(5) (Dealing with stolen property), Section 318(4) (Cheating), Section 111(3)(4) (Organized Crime), and Section 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt)

The court also considered the legal principles regarding the discretionary grant of bail in cases involving deep-rooted criminal conspiracies and the potential for tampering with evidence

The Court examined the material collected during the investigation, specifically the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, which identified the applicant’s account as an integral part of a "well-organized network of cyber fraud"

The court noted that the applicant’s own memorandum statement admitted to opening bank accounts and handing over credentials to third parties in exchange for monetary commissions

The court relied on the statement of co-accused Atul Upadhyay, who identified the applicant as the facilitator who managed and collected bank documents for the mule accounts

The court reasoned that the magnitude of the defrauded amount, the organized modus operandi, and the conscious participation of the applicant established a strong prima facie case

It determined that the structured nature of the crime and the risk of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence outweighed the grounds for bail

It held that given the gravity of the offense and the existence of cogent financial and documentary evidence, the applicant was not entitled to relief at this stage

The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously and directed that a copy of the order be sent for compliance