Active participation in facilitating mule accounts for organized cyber-fraud syndicate warrants denial of regular bail.

The applicants sought regular bail following their arrest in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 at P.S. Cyber Range, Raipur.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants were part of an organized criminal syndicate involved in a large-scale cyber-fraud network.

Investigations revealed that approximately 128 "mule" bank accounts were opened at the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur, to receive and route defrauded funds.

Specific to the applicants: Jai Baghel’s account saw credits of ₹14.34 Lakhs; Jujesh Sona’s account saw ₹48.98 Lakhs; and an account facilitated by Sheikh Shoheb (via Ravi Kumar) saw ₹58.41 Lakhs, with almost all funds withdrawn shortly after deposit.

Numerous complaints against these accounts were registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Coordination Portal across multiple states.

The applicants argued they were falsely implicated based on co-accused statements and cited parity with other individuals granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and evidence of organized cyber-fraud.

Whether the principle of parity applies to the applicants based on bail granted to co-accused persons by higher or coordinate courts.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for regular bail, and Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding organized crime and stolen property.

The Court also relied on the principle that economic offences undermining the integrity of the financial system must be viewed with a distinct, more stringent approach during bail considerations compared to isolated crimes.

The Court observed that the material on record prima facie established the applicants' active involvement in facilitating "mule" accounts used for routing proceeds of inter-state cyber-fraud.

The Court emphasized the "systematic" and "deliberate" nature of the transactions, noting that the rapid credit and subsequent withdrawal of large sums indicated an organized operation rather than isolated incidents.

Regarding the plea of parity, the Court distinguished the applicants' cases from the co-accused granted bail by the Supreme Court; the latter was a woman who received a minimal amount (₹8,000/-), whereas the applicants were involved in transactions totaling lakhs of rupees.

The Court further noted that it had previously rejected bail for several other identically situated co-accused in the same crime number.

The Court held that given the gravity of the economic offence, the inter-state ramifications, the organized nature of the syndicate, and the potential prejudice to the ongoing investigation, it was not a fit case for the grant of bail.

The trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.