Grant of bail on grounds of parity in organized cyber fraud involving mule bank accounts.

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

He was arrested on May 26, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 129/2025 for allegedly operating a "mule" bank account registered in the name of co-accused Anil Kshatriya.

It is alleged that the account was used for cyber fraud, receiving deposits totaling ₹21,84,766, following a complaint regarding an unauthorized transaction of ₹2,000.

The applicant was implicated based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, who claimed he opened the account at the applicant's request for a fee of ₹4,000.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, that no seizure was made from him, and that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering his period of incarceration and the principle of parity with co-accused.

2. Whether the allegations of involvement in an organized cyber fraud syndicate, as presented in the prosecution’s affidavit, are sufficient to deny bail despite the completion of the investigation.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, concerning the grant of bail.

The principle of parity, citing orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ishika Singh v. State (SLP (Crl.) No. 13678/2025) and its own orders in Avinash Tandekar v. State (MCRC No. 148 of 2026) and Ashish Kalwani v. State (MCRC No. 497 of 2026), where similarly situated co-accused were granted relief.

Procedural mandate of ensuring the applicant's presence during trial under Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNSS.

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

The State argued that the applicant operated a fraudulent account and admitted to selling accounts for monetary consideration.

The Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had been in judicial custody for nearly a year (since May 26, 2025).

Crucially, the Court found that since three other co-accused—Ishika Singh, Avinash Tandekar, and Ashish Kalwani—were already enlarged on bail, the applicant was entitled to the same benefit on the ground of parity.

The Court noted that with only 3 out of 14 witnesses examined, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, making continued incarceration unnecessary provided strict conditions were met to prevent absconding or tampering with evidence.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates as per Section 269 of BNSS; (iii) liability under Section 209 of BNSS for non-compliance with proclamations; and (iv) personal appearance for framing of charges and Section 351 BNSS statements.