Denial of bail in organized cyber fraud involving mule accounts and ongoing investigation of absconding co-accused.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on September 22, 2025, in connection with an organized cyber fraud operation.

Information from the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal revealed that a "mule" bank account at IDFC Bank, Pathalgaon, was used to receive approximately ₹3,00,000 obtained through cyber fraud from multiple victims.

Co-accused Firoz Khan allegedly obtained the account details from one Yashoda Kurre under false pretenses, and the applicant is accused of active connivance in facilitating these accounts for illegal transactions and sharing proceeds.

Although the applicant argued that prosecution witnesses did not support the case and cited his father’s medical condition as grounds for bail, the State opposed the application, highlighting the seizure of a mobile handset used in the offense and the organized nature of the crime.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the allegations of organized cyber fraud and the ongoing nature of the investigation

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

The substantive charges were brought under Sections 317(2), 317(4) (stolen property), 318(4) (cheating), 61(2)(A) (criminal conspiracy), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court emphasized the principle that bail may be refused where the gravity of the offense is high, there is evidence of an organized criminal network, and there is a risk of hampering an ongoing investigation involving absconding co-accused.

The Court reasoned that the allegations against the applicant are of a "serious nature," involving active participation in an "organized cyber fraud" operation.

Despite the applicant's claim that witnesses had not supported the prosecution, the Court prioritized the evidence collected during the investigation, specifically the Investigating Officer’s affidavit and the memorandum statements of co-accused.

These materials prima facie established the applicant's "pivotal role" in arranging mule accounts for routing crime proceeds.

The Court found that the recovery of the mobile handset used in the offense and the fact that several co-accused remain absconding weighed heavily against the applicant, as his release could jeopardize the "further investigation" and the recovery of cheated amounts.

It held that given the gravity of the offense and the applicant's significant role in a larger conspiracy, no leniency was warranted. The trial court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.