Parity with co-accused and prolonged incarceration justify grant of regular bail under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The case originated from an inquiry into "mule bank accounts" allegedly used for receiving unlawful monetary benefits from cybercrimes.

An account in Utkarsh Small Finance Bank, registered under the name Shoaib Khan, was identified as having processed fraudulent transactions amounting to ₹8,22,146/-.

During the investigation, the applicant was implicated based on the memoranda of co-accused persons for allegedly facilitating the laundering of cybercrime proceeds.

The applicant, a B.Tech student, was arrested on 23.04.2025.

This is the applicant's second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS; his first application (MCRC No. 6204 of 2025) was rejected on merits on 13.08.2025.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the grounds of parity and prolonged incarceration.

The Court considered the penal provisions under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 61(2)(a), 338, 339, 340, and 341 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning cheating and financial fraud.

Procedurally, the application was governed by Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Court applied the principle of parity, drawing from the Supreme Court's order in Nitesh Puri v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 941/2026), which granted bail to a similarly placed co-accused.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the duration of the applicant’s custody. It noted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since 23.04.2025, and that the investigation was complete with the charge-sheet already filed.

The Court placed significant weight on the principle of parity, observing that co-accused Nitesh Puri had been granted bail by the Supreme Court on 16.02.2026.

The Court considered the applicant’s background as a student with no criminal antecedents and his recent acquittal in a related matter (Crime No. 41/2025), concluding that his continued detention was not warranted as the trial would likely be prolonged.

The High Court allowed the second bail application and ordered the release of Abhishek Jaiswal on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties.

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments during evidence; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) specific personal appearance during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.