Bail granted to facilitator in cyber fraud as role was distinguishable from primary account holder.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on August 26, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 365/2025.

The prosecution alleged a cyber fraud involving ₹1,30,92,073/-, where a "mule" bank account was opened at ICICI Bank, Champa Branch, in the name of co-accused Balram Yadav.

According to a memorandum statement by Balram Yadav, the applicant facilitated his contact with another co-accused, Michael Sahu, who then coordinated the fraudulent transactions and account operations.

The applicant contended he had no control over the bank account or the linked mobile number and had been in custody for approximately six months.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering his role was limited to facilitating introductions rather than direct control of the fraudulent account.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail.

It also considered the substantive offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) (theft/stolen property), and 111(1) (organized crime) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Procedurally, the court referenced Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding memorandum statements and Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS regarding trial attendance and consequences of non-appearance.

The Court observed that while the fraud involved a substantial sum, the applicant's specific role was distinguishable from that of the primary accused, Balram Yadav.

Specifically, the bank account used for the proceeds of the crime was in Balram's name, not the applicant’s.

The Court noted that the investigation had progressed significantly with the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial was expected to take considerable time.

Furthermore, the applicant had only one prior criminal antecedent from 2024, which did not justify continued pre-trial detention given the nature of the allegations against him in the current case.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions: he must not seek unnecessary adjournments;

must appear at all trial stages under penalty of Section 269 of the BNS;

and must personally attend key trial milestones such as the framing of charges and recording of his statement.