Bail granted to account holder of mule account used in online trading fraud.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail following the withdrawal of his first application on February 18, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Bhagwat Prasad Tiwari, was defrauded of money by individuals promising high returns in the stock market via an online trading application.

Police traced a transaction of Rs. 5,00,000/- to a joint bank account held by the applicant and co-accused Uma Shankar.

The applicant was arrested on January 10, 2026, for offenses under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering his role as a joint holder of a "mule account" and the absence of direct allegations of inducing the complainant.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is justified given the completion of the investigation against him and his lack of criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (Cheating) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act (Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource).

The principle of "speedy trial" and the balancing of personal liberty against the gravity of the offense as contemplated under Section 346 of the BNSS (formerly Section 309 CrPC).

The Court observed that while the applicant’s joint account was used for the transaction of defrauded money, there were no direct allegations that he personally induced the complainant or withdrew the funds.

The court noted that the investigation against the applicant was complete and the final report submitted, meaning there was no immediate risk of him tapering with evidence, which is primarily documentary and based on a money trail.

The judge emphasized the applicant's young age (23 years), his lack of criminal history, and his socio-economic status, concluding that he was unlikely to flee justice or commit further offenses.

The court found that since the trial would take considerable time, continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The holding was conditioned upon the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount and several conduct-related conditions.

The bail is effective until the end of the trial unless cancelled for breach of conditions.