Regular bail denied for facilitating organized cyber fraud through mule bank accounts.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in FIR No. 109 dated 08.09.2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Chandigarh, under Sections 318(4), 351(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”); Sections 112(2) and 317(2) BNS were subsequently added.

The FIR arose from allegations that the complainant had permitted his bank account to be used for receiving and withdrawing suspected cyber-fraud proceeds after being promised a commission.

Investigation allegedly disclosed an organized cyber-crime syndicate involving fraudulent transactions and the use of “mule” bank accounts.

Co-accused Ankit allegedly stated that the petitioner had procured his bank account for a commission of Rs.4,000, through which Rs.8.78 lakhs were credited and withdrawn.

The petitioner was arrested on 19.01.2026, and the investigation had concluded by the time of consideration of the bail petition.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in view of the allegations that he facilitated the use of bank accounts for receiving and withdrawing proceeds of organized cyber fraud.

Whether the seriousness of the alleged economic and cyber offences, the petitioner’s specific role, and the material collected during investigation constituted sufficient grounds to deny bail despite completion of investigation and the petitioner’s period of incarceration.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences were considered in the context of Sections 318(4), 351(2), 61(2), 112(2) and 317(2) of the BNS.

The Court applied the bail principle that the gravity and specific nature of the allegations, the accused’s role, the material collected during investigation, and the possibility of interference with the administration of justice are relevant considerations.

It further treated organized cyber fraud and the laundering or routing of illicit funds through bank accounts as serious economic offences warranting a strict approach at the stage of bail.

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner were specific and supported by documentary material collected during investigation.

He was alleged to have induced co-accused Ankit to provide his bank details, facilitated the credit of Rs.8.78 lakhs into Ankit’s account, and caused the amount to be withdrawn at his behest.

The petitioner was also alleged to have used his own Indian Overseas Bank account for receiving and withdrawing amounts aggregating to Rs.9,87,200 from fraudulent transactions.

The Court rejected the significance of the petitioner’s defence that he had received only a small commission and that the accounts had been misused, holding that providing banking channels was a crucial link in the alleged organized cyber-crime operation.

Considering the increasing incidence and wider societal and financial impact of cyber crimes, the Court held that the gravity of the offences, the petitioner’s alleged role, and the surrounding circumstances did not disclose a compelling ground for bail.

It clarified that the observations were limited to the bail determination and would not constitute an opinion on the merits or prejudice the trial.

Any pending application was rendered infructuous following dismissal of the main petition.