Bail granted on ground of parity and prolonged detention in cyber fraud case under BNS.

The applicant, Rajendra Kumar Puran, was arrested on 20.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 79/2025 for allegedly conspiring with co-accused persons to receive and deposit ₹27,27,556 obtained through cyber fraud into his bank account.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant knowingly facilitated the concealment and utilization of illegally obtained property.

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, citing the prolonged duration of his judicial custody and the fact that co-accused persons, Bhagwat Prasad Shukla and Ayush Pandey, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court and High Court respectively.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under the principle of parity and on the grounds of prolonged pretrial detention.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The Court also considered the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, referencing the Supreme Court’s order in SLP (Crl.) No. 20364/2025 regarding co-accused Bhagwat Prasad Shukla.

High Court precedents regarding co-accused Ayush Pandey in MCRC No. 1586/2026.

Penal provisions involved included Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning the dishonest receipt of stolen property and organized crime.

The Court weighed the State's objections regarding the serious nature of cyber fraud and the possibility of witness tampering against the applicant’s circumstances.

It noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, meaning custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Crucially, the Court observed that two similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail—one by the Supreme Court and another by the High Court—thereby invoking the principle of parity.

The Court further emphasized that the applicant had been in custody since May 2025, had no prior criminal antecedents, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

The Court held that given the parity with co-accused and the length of detention, the applicant was entitled to release on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

The release was made subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory attendance at all trial stages pursuant to Section 269 of the BNS, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.