Prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress warrant regular bail in financial cyber-fraud prosecutions.

The applicant was arrested on August 26, 2025, following an investigation into "mule accounts" flagged by the Ministry of Government of India’s Coordination Portal

It was alleged that the applicant’s ICICI Bank account saw transactions totaling approximately ₹30–32 lakhs

In his memorandum statement, the applicant admitted to providing his account credentials and internet banking access to an individual named Firoz Khan for a monthly rent of ₹10,000

The applicant was charged under Sections 317(2), 317(4), and 317(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

A previous bail application (MCRC No. 9410 of 2025) was rejected on merits on January 2, 2026

The applicant filed this second bail application citing prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the period of custody and the status of the trial?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

It further relied on the judicial principle that prolonged pre-trial detention and a lack of criminal antecedents are valid grounds for reconsidering bail in a subsequent application

The Court also integrated procedural safeguards under Section 269 (non-appearance), Section 209 (failure to appear after proclamation), and Section 351 (recording of statements) of the BNS/BNSS to ensure trial compliance

The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since August 26, 2025

Despite the filing of the charge sheet, the trial’s progress was deemed slow, as only 4 out of 10 prosecution witnesses had been examined

The Court reasoned that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future

Furthermore, the Court took into account that the applicant had no prior criminal record

While the prosecution opposed the bail, the Court concluded that the duration of custody and the delay in the trial process outweighed the necessity of continued detention, provided that the applicant’s presence at trial could be secured through stringent conditions

The Court held that the delay in the trial and the applicant's clean antecedents justified the grant of bail

The relief was granted subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear at all fixed dates, and must strictly comply with proceedings under Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNS/BNSS