Grant of regular bail to student accused of providing mule accounts for cyber fraud.

The applicant filed a third application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on November 20, 2025, in connection with a cyber-fraud case involving the "Premji App," where the complainant was allegedly induced to invest ₹2,27,75,000/-.

The applicant was accused of facilitating a "mule account" (belonging to one Rohit) under the allurement of commission from co-accused Abhishek Vishwakarma; approximately ₹3.50 Lacs of the defrauded amount was traced to this account.

The applicant's two previous bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn.

1. Whether the applicant, a 21-year-old student with no criminal antecedents, is entitled to regular bail pending trial under Section 483 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary given that the investigation is complete and the prosecution is primarily based on documentary evidence/money trails.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

The court considered Sections 318(4) (Cheating) and 3(5) (Joint Liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 66D of the Information Technology Act (Punishment for personation using computer resource).

The court relied on the principles of considering the applicant's age, socio-economic status, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the duration of the trial.

The court observed that the applicant is a 21-year-old student and a first-time offender with no prior criminal record.

While the prosecution argued the gravity of the cyber fraud, the court noted that the applicant was not the primary beneficiary but rather a facilitator of a mule account under allurement.

The court reasoned that since the investigation is complete, the final report filed, and the case depends on bank statements and money trails, there is minimal risk of the applicant tampering with evidence.

The court found that the applicant's proposal to deposit ₹1.75 Lacs (half of the amount found in the tied account) demonstrated bona fide intent.

Consequently, the court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary as the trial would take considerable time to conclude.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety; deposit of ₹1.75 Lacs before the trial court to be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit; compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding trial attendance; and a prohibition on involving himself in similar offences or influencing witnesses.