Bail denied to accused facilitating illegal betting through mule accounts and unauthorized creation of gaming IDs.

The applicant filed a first bail application after being arrested in connection with Crime No. 763/2025 involving a "mule account" used for significant illegal financial transactions between June and July 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, acting as a computer operator for an employer named Shailendra, created Gaming IDs for illegal cricket betting and shared bank account details (specifically an account belonging to "Ayush") with others to facilitate transactions.

The applicant contended he was merely a salaried employee acting under instructions, that no incriminating money was found in his personal accounts, and that he had been in custody since September 28, 2025, with no witnesses yet examined.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his alleged role as a facilitator in financial cybercrimes and illegal betting.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of regular bail.

Sections 317(4) (stolen property), 318(4) (cheating), and 61(2)(a) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act (personation for cheating).

Principle of parity and judicial consistency, referencing its prior rejection of a co-accused's bail application under similar circumstances.

The court evaluated the gravity of the offence and the specific role of the applicant as detailed in the memorandum statements and the Investigating Officer's affidavit. It noted that the applicant was not merely a passive participant but was actively engaged in creating Gaming IDs for illegal betting and received commissions for these activities.

The court found that the applicant facilitated the sharing of bank account details used for suspect financial transactions. Despite the applicant's argument that he was a salaried employee with no direct financial benefit from the "mule" proceeds, the court emphasized the nature of the organized illegal activity.

Crucially, the court noted that the bail application of a co-accused, Anil Kurre, had previously been rejected in MCRC No. 381/2026, and found no grounds to deviate from that precedent.

The bail application of Ishwari Prasad @ Vivek Patel was rejected and the court directed the office to communicate the order to the trial court for information.