Bail granted on parity following charge-sheet submission in cybercrime investigation involving mule bank accounts.

The applicant, Sunil Patil, filed a First Bail Application following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 45/2025.

The prosecution alleged that during an investigation into cybercrime "mule accounts" at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Raipur, authorities identified 41 accounts holding approximately Rs. 18,96,851/- in fraudulent funds.

The applicant’s account was specifically identified as holding Rs. 10,998/- allegedly defrauded from a victim in Patna, Bihar.

The applicant has been in custody since March 26, 2025.

The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of innocence and parity with a co-accused, Sarveshwar Barik, who was granted bail on February 27, 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the stage of the trial.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant bail.

It also considered the principle of parity in bail matters, citing its own previous order in Sarveshwar Barik v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRC No. 2012 of 2026).

Furthermore, the court referred to procedural compliance under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 209 (contempt of lawful authority), 269 (non-attendance in obedience to order), and 317 (offences relating to stolen property/dishonest misappropriation), alongside Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of accused statements.

The court observed that the investigation had progressed significantly, as the charge-sheet had already been submitted before the competent trial court.

The court placed heavy reliance on the principle of parity, noting that the co-accused, Sarveshwar Barik, whose case was similar to the applicant's, had already been granted regular bail.

Additionally, the court took into account the period of the applicant's incarceration (nearly one year) and the likelihood that the trial would consume significant time.

Consequently, the court determined that continued detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial and to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

The release is subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend all court dates (subject to Section 269 BNS), and must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.