Grant of Regular Bail on Ground of Parity with Similarly Situated Co-Accused in Cyber Fraud Offence.

The applicant was arrested on 26.03.2025 in connection with Crime No. 79/2025 involving an organized inter-State cyber fraud.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant provided his bank account kit to another person, facilitating the transfer and withdrawal of approximately ₹3.91 crore of fraudulent money.

The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits on 17.12.2025.

The applicant filed this second bail application seeking parity with co-accused Bhagwat Prasad Shukla, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court on 16.01.2026, and Danka Kameshwar Rao, who was subsequently granted bail by the High Court on 09.02.2026.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail by superior/concurrent courts despite the rejection of the applicant's earlier bail application on merits.

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

Substantively, the case involved offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) [relating to stolen property/fraudulent transactions], 111 [Organized crime], and 3(5) [Common intention] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court also applied the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, citing the Supreme Court’s order in *Bhagwat Prasad Shukla v. State* (SLP Crl. No. 20364/2025).

The court noted that while the applicant’s first bail application was dismissed due to the "active involvement" in a massive ₹3.91 crore fraud and his admission of providing account details for money.

A significant change in circumstances occurred thereafter as two "similarly situated" co-accused, Bhagwat Prasad Shukla and Danka Kameshwar Rao, were granted bail by the Supreme Court and the High Court respectively.

The State Counsel could not dispute the fact that these co-accused had been released.

Consequently, the court reasoned that notwithstanding the gravity of the initial allegations, the principle of parity and the fact that the applicant had been in judicial custody since March 2025 (nearly one year) justified his release.

The holding was directed on the ground of parity with co-accused who were granted relief by the Supreme Court.

Relief was granted subject to the furnishing of a personal bond with two sureties and strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence during key trial stages (charge framing, Section 351 BNSS statements), and penalties for violating bail liberty under Section 209 BNS.