Grant of Parity-Based Bail in Cyber Fraud Case Involving Alleged 'Mule Account' Transactions

The applicants filed five first bail applications following their arrest in connection with Crime No. 86/2025 at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Durg

The prosecution alleged that 111 "mule accounts" were opened at Canara Bank, Vaishali Nagar, to receive proceeds from cyber fraud reported via the "Cyber Crime Reporting Portal" and "1930 Helpline"

The applicants contended they were falsely implicated, their accounts were misused by others without their knowledge, and no specific roles were assigned to them in the FIR

The State opposed bail, noting that two other co-accused had their bail rejected previously and applicant Manmeet Singh had one prior criminal antecedent

The applicants had been in custody since early June 2025, and the charge-sheet had already been filed

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the "mule account" allegations and the principle of parity with other co-accused who were granted bail.

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

The court considered the principles of parity in bail, referencing previous orders in MCRC Nos. 10058/2025 and 1106/2026 where co-accused Suraj Kumar and Nitish Kumar were granted relief

Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance before the court and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamation for absconding persons as conditions for the continued liberty of the applicants

While the State highlighted the rejection of bail for two co-accused (MCRC Nos. 6335/2025 and 6240/2025), the Court leaned toward the principle of parity with Suraj Kumar and Nitish Kumar, who were granted bail in February 2026

The Court noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicants (with the exception of Manmeet Singh) had no prior criminal records

Given that the applicants had been incarcerated for nearly a year and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court determined that further pretrial detention was not warranted, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure their presence during trial

The Court held that the applicants be released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions: they must not seek unnecessary adjournments [cond. i], must remain present at every hearing [cond. ii], and must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS [cond. iv]. Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty