Bail Denied in Cyber Fraud Case Involving Systematic Use of Mule Accounts for Large-Scale Money Laundering

The applicant, Namdev Sahu, filed a first bail application after being arrested on June 7, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 28/2025

Investigation into a "mule" bank account of M/s Bhoramdeo Krishi Kendra (belonging to the applicant) revealed it was used for cyber fraud during 2023–2024

It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused Satyanarayan Dubey facilitated these transactions for a commission of ₹40,000, subsequently blocking the account and changing registered mobile numbers to hide activity

Bank records showed a credit of ₹2,18,42,478 on January 10, 2024, of which nearly ₹2.09 crore was withdrawn the same day

The applicant sought bail on grounds of parity with a co-accused already granted bail and his acquittal in a previous 2013 case

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the allegations of organized cyber fraud and the magnitude of the financial transactions involved.

2. Whether the principle of parity applies to the applicant in light of the specific evidence collected against him versus the co-accused who was granted bail.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail

Sections 317(4) (stolen property), 318(2) (cheating), 62(2) (conspiracy/abetment), and 111(3) (organized crime) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

The court evaluated the application based on established principles of the gravity/magnitude of the offence and the distinction between individual roles in a criminal enterprise

The court reasoned that the applicant’s case stood on a "different footing" from the co-accused who received bail

It relied on the Investigating Officer’s affidavit, which highlighted that 56 complaints from multiple states were registered against the applicant's specific bank account on the Cyber Crime Reporting Portal

The court noted the systematic and organized nature of the crime, evidenced by the rapid siphoning of over ₹2.18 crore within a single day

The court found that the applicant was not merely a passive participant but was actively involved in providing account details and sharing commissions from illegal transactions, thereby indicating the gravity and magnitude of the fraud

The bail application was rejected and the trial court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously