Mule-account holder granted bail on parity, while principal cyber-fraud operator was denied bail.

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Belpahar P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 189 of 2026, involving alleged offences under Sections 112(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), read with Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that Tanoj Pradhan and other account holders permitted their bank accounts to be used for receiving, withdrawing, layering and transferring proceeds of cyber fraud, while Himanshu Srivastav allegedly obtained and operated the relevant account credentials.

The account of Tanoj Pradhan, operated in the name of M/s Healthy Foods Enterprises, allegedly received credits of approximately Rs.10,23,053 and recorded debits of approximately Rs.9,73,023; the account was linked with five NCRP complaints.

The prosecution further alleged that accounts connected with six persons received aggregate credits of approximately Rs.5,25,08,691.54 and recorded aggregate debits/transfers of approximately Rs.5,01,73,652.73.

Whether Tanoj Pradhan, alleged to have permitted his bank account to be used for cyber-fraud transactions in return for commission, was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with similarly situated co-accused who had already been released on bail?

Whether Himanshu Srivastav, alleged to have operated the mule accounts and facilitated transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores, was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases, subject to judicial assessment of the allegations, the role attributed to the accused and the surrounding circumstances.

The Court also applied the principle of parity in bail matters, observing that an accused similarly situated to co-accused already granted bail may be entitled to comparable relief.

The alleged offences were examined with reference to Sections 112(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNS, read with Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act.

Bail was granted subject to conditions under Section 483 of the BNSS, including mandatory attendance before the trial court and the statutory consequence for failure to appear under Section 269 of the BNS.

The Court distinguished the roles attributed to the two petitioners. Tanoj was primarily alleged to have handed over his bank account to Himanshu for a small commission, with approximately Rs.10.23 lakhs credited and Rs.9.73 lakhs debited from the account of M/s Healthy Foods Enterprises.

Since co-accused Kedar Pradhan, Paramananda Das and Stifan Bastraya, who stood on a similar footing, had already been granted bail, the Court found that Tanoj was entitled to the benefit of parity.

In contrast, the principal allegation against Himanshu was that he possessed and operated the credentials of several mule accounts and facilitated aggregate transactions exceeding Rs.5 crores.

Considering his allegedly central role in operating the accounts and the substantial amount involved, the Court declined to extend discretionary bail to him.

It allowed Tanoj Pradhan’s bail application in BLAPL No. 6485 of 2026 on the ground that he was similarly situated to co-accused already released on bail.

Tanoj was directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs.50,000 with one solvent surety for the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court and other appropriate conditions.

He was required to attend the trial court on every date of posting unless exempted; failure to appear without sufficient cause could result in proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS.