Bail granted to mule account holder based on parity and absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 229/2025 for allegedly participating in a cyber fraud scheme involving "mule bank accounts".

Based on data from the Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), authorities identified 54 bank accounts at Ratnakar Bank Limited (RBL) used to facilitate fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs. 21,97,673/-, one of which was held in the applicant's name.

The applicant has been in custody since May 20, 2025.

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail after two co-accused persons, Mukesh Tandi and Pawan Jaiswal, were granted bail in February 2026.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS based on the principle of parity and the duration of his pretrial detention.

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

The substantive offences were registered under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court also applied the judicial principle of parity, which mandates that where the roles of the accused are identical and co-accused have been granted relief, the similarly situated applicant should also be considered for bail.

The Court examined the nature and gravity of the offence alongside the applicant’s specific role as a mule account holder.

While acknowledging the prosecution's claim that the applicant facilitated cyber fraud and wrongful gain, the Court emphasized that the applicant had been detained since May 20, 2025, and that the investigation was complete as evidenced by the filing of the charge-sheet.

Significant weight was given to the fact that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents.

Most importantly, the Court found the applicant’s case to be identical to that of co-accused Mukesh Tandi and Pawan Jaiswal, who were previously granted bail by the same Court.

Consequently, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary as the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The holding was predicated on the period of detention, the absence of criminal history, the completion of the charge-sheet, and the principle of parity.

The release is subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including mandatory appearance at trial and a prohibition against seeking adjournments during witness testimony.

Default in these conditions authorizes the trial court to treat such actions as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Section 269 or 209 of the BNS.