Chhattisgarh High Court denies bail in alleged ₹1.15-crore cyber-fraud scheme using mule accounts

The three applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 118/2026, registered at City Kotwali Police Station, Dhamtari, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 112 and/or 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66(C) and/or 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000

The prosecution alleged that the applicants and others induced ten victims to open bank accounts on the pretext of arranging loans, then obtained their passbooks and ATM cards and used the accounts to route online fraudulent transactions. Approximately ₹1,15,69,710 was deposited and ₹1,15,69,818 withdrawn through those accounts

The applicants relied, among other things, on the filing of the charge-sheet, length of custody, absence of prior criminal antecedents, and alleged weaknesses in witness evidence

The State opposed bail, alleging that Amey and Vicky had active roles in the scheme

Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, their asserted roles, and the material collected during investigation

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of the applications for regular bail

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the apparent role of the applicants, the amount involved, and the material said to connect them to the alleged offences

The Court found that the allegations disclosed a coordinated scheme involving the procurement and use of several persons’ bank accounts, the routing of substantial sums through those accounts, and the alleged receipt of proceeds linked to online fraud

It considered the applicants’ alleged active roles and the technical material, including call-detail records and cyber-fraud complaints linking seized accounts to fraudulent transactions, sufficient at this stage to indicate prima facie involvement. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the magnitude of the amount involved, the Court was not persuaded to grant bail

rejected all three applications