Grant of parity-based bail in cyber fraud involving "mule accounts" where charge-sheet is filed.

The applicants filed five first bail applications following their arrest in connection with Crime No. 86/2025 at P.S. Vaishali Nagar

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 argued 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 that one applicant, Manmeet Singh, had a prior criminal record

The applicants have been in custody since June 2025, and the charge-sheet has been filed

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the cyber fraud allegations and the principle of parity with other co-accused

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

It also considered Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning cheating, stolen property, and criminal conspiracy

The court relied on the principle of parity, noting that co-accused persons (Suraj Kumar and Nitish Kumar) had already been granted bail

Furthermore, the court emphasized the impact of procedural delays and the filing of the charge-sheet on the right to liberty

The Court balanced the gravity of the cybercrime allegations against the prolonged period of the applicants' incarceration (since June 2025) and the completion of the investigation (filing of the charge-sheet)

Although the State pointed out that some co-accused were denied bail in 2025, the Court observed that others were later granted bail in February 2026, creating a ground for parity

The Court noted that except for Manmeet Singh, the applicants lacked criminal antecedents

It reasoned that since the trial would take considerable time to conclude, and the investigation was complete, further detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure their presence during the trial

It held that the applicants should be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each subject to conditions including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; (iii) consequences under Section 209 BNS for misuse of liberty; and (iv) personal appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS