Handing over mule bank accounts for illegal cyber transactions constitutes organized financial crime, justifying denial of bail.

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the alleged financial fraud and the stage of the trial.

The court held

The Court held that given the gravity of the organized crime and the risk to the banking system, it was not a fit case for the grant of bail.

It also directed

The bail application of Anurag Sharma was rejected.

The trial court was directed to be informed of the order for necessary proceedings.

01Facts

The applicant, Anurag Sharma, was arrested on July 25, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 218/2025 for allegedly providing "mule accounts" used in cyber fraud.

¶ 2

Following a report from the Cyber Crime Police Headquarters regarding fraudulent transactions at Axis, ICICI, and UCO banks, investigation revealed that the applicant opened accounts in exchange for money and provided his passbook and ATM card to third parties.

¶ 2, 6

Significant sums—approximately ₹30.85 lakhs in an ICICI account and ₹38.22 lakhs in a UCO bank account—were credited and subsequently debited.

¶ 6

The applicant moved for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, contending he was a victim of identity theft and had no knowledge of the transactions.

¶ 3

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the alleged financial fraud and the stage of the trial.

¶ 1, 8

03Law Applied

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

¶ 1

It considered the classifications of offences under Sections 111 (Organized Crime), 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

¶ 1

The Court also took into account the principle of parity and judicial consistency, referencing the prior rejection of bail for a co-accused in Ravishankar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRC No. 8263/2025).

¶ 4, 8

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 111 Section 317

04Reasoning

The Court analyzed the Investigating Officer’s affidavit, which detailed the modus operandi of the crime: the applicant knowingly sold access to his bank accounts for illegal financial routing.

¶ 6, 7

The Court observed that the volume of transactions (exceeding ₹69 lakhs across two accounts) indicated a well-orchestrated, large-scale financial fraud facilitated through digital platforms.

¶ 7, 8

The Court reasoned that such organized crimes severely impact the banking system and the national economy.

¶ 8

Furthermore, the Court noted that a co-accused’s bail application had already been rejected on similar grounds, which weighed against the applicant's plea.

¶ 8

The argument that the applicant’s SIM and documents were lost was implicitly disregarded in light of the specific evidence regarding the sale of the account for money.

¶ 6, 7