Man Accused Of Procuring Mule Accounts Denied Pre-Arrest Bail As P&H HC Cites ₹53.7 Crore Routed Through One Account

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Sections 112(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that he procured and controlled multiple bank accounts through co-accused Kailash, obtained the related banking credentials and instruments, and used the accounts to route funds linked to cyber fraud.

The State relied on banking records, electronic communications recovered from Kailash’s phone, and allegations that the petitioner funded Kailash’s evasion of police.

It also asserted that approximately Rs 53.71 crore had passed through one account and that custodial interrogation was required to trace funds, recover instruments and devices, and identify other participants.

The petitioner argued that the case rested substantially on a co-accused’s disclosure, that relevant records were already available, and that he was willing to join the investigation.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the Court to consider a request for anticipatory bail.

The discretion is exercised by assessing the circumstances of the individual case, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused’s alleged role, the material collected, risks to the investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation; these considerations are illustrative, not exhaustive.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510, para 11, for that approach.

A co-accused’s disclosure statement alone is not substantive evidence of guilt, although other material relied upon by the investigating agency may be considered at the bail stage, with its evidentiary value reserved for the appropriate stage.

The Court considered the prosecution case to extend beyond an isolated transaction or the co-accused’s disclosure: it included allegations of procuring and operating multiple accounts, banking and electronic material, substantial transactions, and assistance to Kailash in evading police.

It held that the documentary or electronic character of the evidence did not, by itself, eliminate the possible need for custodial interrogation, given the need to identify effective account controllers, trace funds, recover relevant instruments, and investigate the alleged network.

On the material then before it, the Court found the State’s concerns sufficient and concluded that the petitioner’s willingness to join the investigation did not adequately meet the investigative requirements.

The Court dismissed the petition.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.