Bail Denied to Accused Facilitating Cyber Fraud Through Direct Control of Mule Bank Accounts

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The prosecution alleged that a bank account in the name of co-accused Yamini Sori was used to receive ₹51,32,024 obtained through cyber financial fraud.

Investigation revealed that the applicant was in possession and control of this "mule account," having induced Sori to open it in exchange for a small sum and commission.

The applicant allegedly destroyed bank documents and cheques to screen evidence.

He was arrested on October 30, 2025, and a charge-sheet has since been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering his alleged role in managing a mule account for organized cyber fraud and destroying evidence.

Sections 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) regarding stolen property; Section 318(4) regarding cheating; Section 238(g) regarding disappearance of evidence; and Section 3(5) regarding common intention of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail, while considering the gravity of organized financial crimes.

The Court evaluated the applicant’s contention that he was implicated solely on the basis of a memorandum statement and suspicion.

The Bench noted the Investigating Officer's affidavit, which detailed the applicant's "possession and control" of the bank account and his active involvement in inducing the co-accused to facilitate illegal transactions totaling over ₹51 lakhs.

The Court took a stern view of the evidence suggesting the applicant was involved in "organized crime".

The Court observed that the bail application of the primary co-accused, Yamini Sori, had already been rejected on February 3, 2026, creating a precedent for denying relief in the same crime.

The bail application was rejected and the trial court was directed to be informed of the order.