Bail denied to mule account holder in cyber fraud involving significant suspicious transactions despite lack of antecedents.

The applicant filed her first bail application following her arrest in connection with Crime No. 593/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant’s bank account in Karnataka Bank, Mohan Nagar Branch, was utilized as a "mule account" to facilitate cyber fraud.

Investigations triggered by the Samanvay Portal (Ministry of Home Affairs) revealed that approximately ₹71,06,579 was credited to and subsequently debited from the applicant's account between 2023 and 2025.

The applicant contended she was falsely implicated based solely on a co-accused's memorandum statement, asserting her brother had "rented" her account to a third party for a fee.

The applicant has been in custody since November 8, 2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering her gender, lack of criminal antecedents, and the filing of the charge-sheet.

2. Whether the gravity of the alleged cyber-fraud and the significant financial transactions through the applicant's "mule account" justify the continued detention of the applicant.

The Court considered the provisions for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The charges against the applicant were registered under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 111, and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which pertain to various grades of cheating, organized crime, and criminal conspiracy.

The court balanced the principle of personal liberty against the severity of economic offenses and the specific role of "mule accounts" in cyber-crime syndicates.

The Court acknowledged the applicant's defense that she had no criminal history and that the account was managed by her brother and a co-accused.

The Court placed heavy reliance on the personal affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, which detailed the financial trail.

The analysis focused on the high volume of suspicious transactions—exceeding ₹71 lakhs within a short span—occurring in an account admittedly belonging to the applicant.

Despite the applicant being a woman and the charge-sheet having been filed, the court found that the nature of the involvement in a cyber-fraud network outweighed the arguments for release at this stage.

The Court directed the trial court to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously.