Grant of Regular Bail on Grounds of Parity in Cyber Fraud Case Under BNS

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on February 10, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in a cyber fraud syndicate where nine bank accounts at Bandhan Bank, Rajnandgaon, were used to handle illegal proceeds totaling ₹6,86,860.

It was alleged the applicant habitually acquired and disposed of property obtained through dishonest means.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity, noting that co-accused Mohammad Salim and Shiva David had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court and the High Court, respectively.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity and the stage of the investigation.

The Court applied the principles of parity in criminal jurisprudence and the provisions for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The applicant was charged under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) (relating to stolen property/fraudulent claims), 111 (organized crime), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court also considered the procedural implications of Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNSS regarding the conduct of the accused during trial.

The Court observed that the investigation against the applicant had progressed significantly, with the charge-sheet already being filed before the competent court.

The Court placed heavy reliance on the principle of parity, noting that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail to co-accused Mohammad Salim on January 15, 2026, and the High Court had granted bail to co-accused Shiva David on February 19, 2026.

The Judge reasoned that since the applicant has been in custody since February 10, 2026, and the trial is expected to take considerable time, continued incarceration was unnecessary given that similarly situated co-accused were already at liberty.

The holding was based on the grounds of parity and the completion of the investigation.

The Court imposed specific conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, compulsory attendance on specific trial dates (framing of charges and recording of statements), and penalties under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS for non-compliance or misuse of liberty.