Anticipatory bail denied in cyber fraud involving large-scale mule account transactions and multi-state proceeds of crime.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 07/2025 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg

The case originated from an FIR lodged by Sub-Inspector Paras Singh Thakur based on data from the ‘Samanvay Portal’ of the Ministry of Home Affairs

Investigations into suspected "Mule Accounts" at Karnataka Bank revealed that 111 accounts were utilized to route approximately Rs. 86,33,247/- gained through interstate cyber frauds

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, the evidence was already in police custody, and no custodial interrogation was necessary

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, given the nature of the allegations involving organized cyber fraud

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest

The Court adhered to the established judicial principle that while considering anticipatory bail, the court must weigh the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific role of the accused, and the potential impact on the investigation

The applicant was charged under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court evaluated the applicant's plea against the gravity of the prosecution's allegations. Although the applicant argued that the investigation was documentation-heavy and that his custodial interrogation was unnecessary because records were already with the agency, the Court focused on the scale of the alleged criminal activity.

Specifically, the Court noted the complexity of the "Mule Account" network involving 111 bank accounts and the routing of over Rs. 86 lakhs obtained through fraudulent online transactions across multiple states.

The Court reasoned that the nature and gravity of such organized cybercrime outweighed the arguments for bail at this stage, necessitating a dismissal to ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

While the Court refrained from commenting on the final merits of the case, it explicitly cited the "nature and gravity of offence" as the primary reason for rejection. The anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to be informed of the order.