Grant of Bail on Grounds of Parity and Prolonged Incarceration Despite History of Cyber Fraud Complaints

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant opened a bank account at the behest of co-accused Gopal Tandi and handed over his bank kit (ATM card and passbook) for fraudulent activities.

Investigation revealed 128 "mule accounts," with the applicant’s account reflecting suspicious transactions of Rs. 12,11,341/-, including Rs. 25,000/- directly linked to cyber fraud victims.

The applicant was arrested on March 26, 2025.

His first bail application (MCRC No. 9224/2025) was rejected on merits on November 17, 2025.

The State opposed the bail, noting the filing of the charge-sheet and the existence of 10 other similar complaints against the applicant across India.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused and the length of his incarceration despite the rejection of his previous bail application on merits

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

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

Principle of parity, referencing the prior grant of bail to co-accused Shabbir Khan in MCRC No. 2640/2026.

Evaluation of the duration of incarceration as a factor in balancing the right to liberty against the stage of trial.

The Court acknowledged that while the applicant’s first bail plea was rejected on merits, changed circumstances—specifically the continued incarceration for nearly one year—warranted a fresh consideration.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning the custodial presence of the applicant for investigation was no longer required.

Crucially, the Court observed that the case of the present applicant was identical to that of co-accused Shabbir Khan, who had already been granted bail by the High Court in March 2026.

Consequently, despite the State's objection regarding the applicant's involvement in other similar complaints, the Court determined that the grounds of parity and the substantial period already served in jail outweighed the gravity of the allegations.

The Court allowed the second bail application, granting regular bail to Kamleshwar Mugri, upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions: including a prohibition on seeking adjournments during evidence, mandatory presence at trial hearings under threat of Section 269 BNS, and specific appearances for charge framing and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.