Grant of bail allowed where custodial interrogation is unnecessary and applicant’s role in cyber fraud remains a matter of trial.

The applicant, Ravi Wadhwani, filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on December 21, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 189/2025.

The prosecution alleges that the applicant opened a bank account and handed over its operational control to co-accused Sanjay Tharani for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/-.

The account was allegedly used as a "mule account" to facilitate cyber fraud, specifically involving a fraudulent transaction of Rs. 2,000/- and total suspicious credits amounting to Rs. 1,70,415/-.

A chargesheet was filed on March 11, 2026, for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations, the extent of financial involvement, and the stage of the criminal proceedings.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (the successor to Section 439 CrPC) regarding regular bail.

Essential ingredients of Section 317 of the BNS, which requires knowledge or reason to believe that property is stolen or proceeds of crime.

The principle established in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), stating that at the bail stage, courts must consider the existence of mens rea (guilty mind) on broad probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The court examined the applicant's contention that he lacked mens rea, as he had merely rented his account for a fee without knowledge of the illegal transactions, a claim supported by his memorandum statement.

The court noted that while the state opposed bail on the grounds of an organized cyber fraud network, the specific amount credited to the applicant’s account (Rs. 1,70,415/-) was "comparatively on the lower side".

The court reasoned that the applicant’s actual role and intent are matters for trial, and since the investigation is substantially complete (chargesheet filed) and the trial is expected to be lengthy, continued custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

The court held that given the circumstances and the limited role of the applicant, he should be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at trial and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.