Grant of bail on ground of parity to accused in organized cyber fraud involving mule accounts.

The applicant, Bajju Sharma, filed a second bail application seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 129/2025.

The prosecution alleged that 128 "mule accounts" were opened at the Bank of Maharashtra, Raipur, to facilitate organized cyber fraud, involving the diversion of approximately ₹64,10,855/-.

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 8993 of 2025) was rejected on 15.12.2025 because his account showed substantial transactions of approximately ₹1.79 crore related to the fraud.

The applicant moved this second application citing a change in circumstances: the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail to co-accused Ishika Singh, and the High Court subsequently granted bail to co-accused Avinash Tandekar and Krishna Ghodesawar on grounds of parity.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who were granted bail by the Supreme Court and High Court.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The principle of judicial parity, specifically referencing the Supreme Court’s order in Ishika Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 4494/2025) and the High Court's own prior orders in MCRC No. 148 of 2026 and MCRC No. 902 of 2026.

Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations—specifically that the applicant’s bank account was used to circulate large sums of defrauded money.

The Court shifted its focus to the fact that the investigation had progressed significantly, with the charge-sheet already filed.

The Court found that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had released the primary co-accused (Ishika Singh) and the High Court had extended that parity to other co-accused (Avinash and Krishna), the present applicant was similarly situated regarding the right to liberty pending trial.

The State’s opposition, while noting the organized nature of the crime, failed to provide a legal basis to distinguish the applicant's case from those co-accused already granted relief.

The Court ordered the release of Bajju Sharma upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions including: (i) no seeking of adjournments during witness presence; (ii) mandatory attendance on all trial dates unless exempted; and (iii) strict compliance with Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS regarding presence and non-misuse of liberty.