Grant of bail on grounds of parity and prolonged pretrial detention in cyber-fraud mule account operations.

The applicant, Sunil Walter, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2025 involving a cyber fraud scheme discovered via the Cyber Coordination Portal (I4C).

Investigations into 41 "mule" bank accounts at Karnataka Bank, Raipur, revealed that ₹27,27,556/- in fraudulent proceeds were deposited between January 1, 2025, and January 11, 2025.

The applicant was implicated based on the memorandum statements of co-accused persons, alleging he assisted in utilizing these funds.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, citing a period of detention since May 1, 2025, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that nine other co-accused persons had already been granted bail by the same court.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under the principle of parity and considering his duration of custody.

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

The court also applied the doctrine of parity, which suggests that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail.

Additionally, the court considered the procedural requirements for bail conditions under Sections 269 (non-attendance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), and 209 (failure to appear) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court weighed the seriousness of the cyber fraud allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation was nearing completion as the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

Most significantly, the Court observed that nine co-accused individuals (including Manish Rohra and others) had already been granted bail in related MCRCs.

The Court found that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and had been in custody for nearly ten months since May 1, 2025.

Consequently, while acknowledging the State's concerns regarding the nature of the offence, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary given the principle of parity and the likely duration of the trial.

The court held that since the charge-sheet was filed and similarly situated co-accused were at liberty, the applicant was entitled to bail.

The release is subject to strict conditions, including an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, mandatory appearance at trial stages (charge framing, Section 351 BNSS statements), and a warning that failure to appear would trigger proceedings under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.