Bail granted on ground of parity to accused allegedly providing bank accounts for cyber fraud transactions.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 145/2025.

The prosecution alleges that seven "mule" bank accounts were used for online fraud involving transactions totaling Rs. 4,16,96,238/- between May 2024 and March 2025.

The applicant is accused of providing his SIM card and bank account to co-accused Chandan Kumar Vishwakarma for Rs. 12,000/-, and further facilitating the procurement of four additional accounts through another person for a commission of Rs. 20,000/-.

The applicant sought bail primarily on the ground of parity, noting that co-accused Chandan Kumar Verma had been granted bail on February 19, 2026.

The State opposed the plea, noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on the grounds of parity and the stage of the investigation.

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 decision was guided by the principle of parity in bail matters, where similarly situated co-accused have already been granted relief.

Furthermore, the Court considered the procedural status of the trial as per the BNSS, referencing Section 269 (failure to attend court), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 (punishment for non-appearance), and Section 351 (recording of statement of the accused).

The Court balanced the gravity of the alleged financial fraud against the procedural status of the case.

It observed that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been submitted to the competent court.

A critical factor in the Court's reasoning was the principle of parity; since the co-accused, Chandan Kumar Verma, had already been granted regular bail in MCRC No. 1758 of 2026, the Court found it equitable to extend the same relief to the applicant.

Additionally, the Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since November 22, 2025, and that the trial's conclusion would likely take significant time.

To safeguard the judicial process, the Court imposed stringent conditions regarding the applicant's presence during crucial trial stages like the opening of the case and framing of charges.

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity and the filing of the charge-sheet.

The release is subject to specific conditions, including a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments

and mandatory attendance on dates for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.