Grant of regular bail on the ground of parity in cyber fraud cases involving mule accounts.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, after his first application (MCRC No. 9668 of 2025) was rejected on merits.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was part of a conspiracy involving 21 "mule" bank accounts at Bandhan Bank, Dongargarh, which were used to commit cyber fraud amounting to ₹10,06,544/- across multiple states.

Specifically, it is alleged the applicant facilitated a transaction of ₹50,000/-.

Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The applicant argued for bail on the ground of parity, noting that co-accused Priyanshu Janghel and Aryan Namdeo had already been granted bail by the High Court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity and the completion of the investigation despite the prior rejection of his bail application on merits.

The court applied the provisions of Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Sections 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which define the substantive offences.

The court relied on the Principle of Parity, where an accused may be granted bail if similarly situated co-accused have already been released.

Procedural requirement of ensuring presence during trial under Sections 269 and 351 of the BNSS.

The Court observed that while the petitioner’s earlier bail was rejected, significant changes in circumstances had occurred, namely the filing of the charge sheet and the granting of bail to co-accused persons Priyanshu Janghel and Aryan Namdeo in February and March 2026.

The Court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since July 17, 2025.

Given that the investigation was complete and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court reasoned that the applicant was entitled to parity.

To mitigate the risk of flight or non-cooperation, the Court imposed stringent conditions, including personal bonds, mandatory presence during key trial stages (charge framing and recording of statements), and penalties for seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Court allowed the second bail application and ordered the release of Suhail Khan on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

The applicant was directed to strictly adhere to conditions such as attending all court dates personally or through counsel and refraining from seeking adjournments when witnesses are present.

Case disposed.