Bail denied to 'Mule Account' holder facilitating organized cyber fraud through multiple interstate fraudulent transactions.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on 07.08.2025 in connection with Crime No. 218/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant’s Axis Bank account was used as a "mule account" to receive and debit funds totaling ₹2,22,871/- derived from online cyber fraud across different states.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based solely on bank transactions without evidence of active participation or intent.

Conversely, the State provided an additional affidavit stating the applicant confessed to providing accounts to a gang for cyber-crime and that 14 such "mule accounts" were identified in the region.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), considering the nature of the allegations and period of incarceration.

The court's decision was governed by Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which pertains to the power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

Substantively, the charges were registered under Sections 111 (Organized crime), 317(1), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) (Stolen property/Cheating), and 371(2) (Habitual dealing in stolen property) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The court also considered the principle of parity and judicial consistency, referencing the prior rejection of bail for co-accused persons under similar circumstances.

The Court weighed the applicant's defense—that mere bank credits do not prove intent—against the concrete evidence presented by the Investigating Officer.

The Court observed that internal investigations and data from the Indian Crime Coordination Centre identified the applicant’s account as one of 14 "mule accounts" specifically utilized for inter-state cyber fraud.

The Court highlighted the gravity of the organized nature of the offense and the applicant's direct involvement in "facilitating online financial fraud" as per the official memorandum statement and bank records.

Furthermore, the Court noted that bail applications for two co-accused individuals in related matters (MCRC No. 8263/2025 and MCRC No. 974/2026) had already been rejected, militating against the grant of bail to the present applicant.

The bail application was rejected.

The trial court was granted liberty to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously.