Bail granted on parity grounds where direct involvement in alleged cyber fraud is not established.

The applicant, Ajay Kumar Thakur, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 78/2025 for alleged participation in organized cyber fraud

The prosecution's case, initiated by information from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), alleged the use of "mule" bank accounts to facilitate cheating and wrongful gain

Specifically, 21 accounts at the Indian Overseas Bank, Raipur, were identified as being involved in fraudulent transactions

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The applicant, who has been in judicial custody since March 26, 2025, moved for regular bail

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the completion of the investigation and the principle of parity with co-accused persons?

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail

The applicant was charged under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) (relating to stolen property/cheating), 111 (organized crime), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court further applied the judicial principle of parity, which mandates similar treatment for similarly placed accused persons, especially when co-accused have been granted bail by superior courts

The Court observed that while the allegations involve serious organized cyber fraud, the prosecution failed to produce specific material demonstrating the applicant's direct involvement in the fraudulent digital or financial transactions beyond mere references to bank accounts

The Court highlighted that the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has already been filed, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary

Significant weight was given to the fact that the applicant has been incarcerated since March 2025

Furthermore, the State did not dispute the applicant’s claim of parity, as similarly situated co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail by both the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Court concluded that continued incarceration would infringe upon the applicant's right to personal liberty without a substantive evidentiary link to the crime

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity and that the completion of the investigation weighed in favor of release

The release was conditioned upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including: (i) not seeking adjournments during witness testimony; (ii) appearing on all trial dates; and (iii) appearing personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS