Regular bail denied where the applicant prima facie facilitated organized cyber fraud through a mule bank account.

The applicant, Michael Sahu, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after being arrested in Crime No. 365/2025 registered at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged a cyber fraud involving approximately Rs. 1,30,92,073/- and the use of an ICICI Bank “mule account” in the name of co-accused Balram Yadav @ Ballu.

According to the investigation, mobile number 8085468467, allegedly used by the applicant, was linked with that account, through which the disputed amount was transacted.

The investigating agency also relied on the memorandum statement of Balram Yadav, who allegedly stated that the applicant arranged the bank account and promised him commission on the fraudulently transacted amount.

The investigation identified 123 online complaints connected with the account, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The applicant claimed that the account and mobile number did not belong to him, that no money had been credited to his account, and that co-accused Harish Yadav had been granted bail.

The applicant had been in custody since 10 March 2026 and had four criminal antecedents, one of which had resulted in acquittal.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged organized nature of the cyber crime, the applicant’s role in operating the mule account, his antecedents, and the rejection of another co-accused’s bail application.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations, material collected during investigation, and the filing of the charge-sheet.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Harish Yadav who had previously been granted bail.

3. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the prima facie indication of an organized cyber crime justified rejection of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the allegations under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and assessed whether the material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie role of the applicant.

The Court applied the established bail principles requiring consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material collected against the accused, the possibility of the offence being organized in character, criminal antecedents, and the circumstances of similarly placed co-accused.

The principle of parity was treated as comparative rather than automatic; bail granted to a co-accused does not confer an entitlement where the applicant’s role and incriminating material are materially different.

The Court found prima facie material connecting the applicant with the mule bank account through the registered mobile number and the alleged operation of an account through which Rs. 1,30,92,073/- had been transacted in a short period.

The investigating agency’s affidavit and the statement attributed to Balram Yadav indicated that the applicant allegedly facilitated the opening and use of the account and offered commission for cyber-fraud transactions.

The existence of 123 cyber-crime complaints, the substantial amount involved, and the alleged coordinated use of a mule account led the Court to prima facie characterize the offence as organized cyber crime.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had remained in custody since 10 March 2026, the Court considered these factors insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the allegations, the prima facie evidence, and the applicant’s three pending criminal cases.

The plea of parity was rejected because the co-accused who had received bail had been granted relief on a different factual footing, while another co-accused’s bail application had been rejected.

Considering the prima facie evidence linking him to the mule account, the alleged organized cyber-fraud involving Rs. 1,30,92,073/-, the 123 complaints, his criminal antecedents, and the absence of applicable parity, the Court rejected his first bail application.

The application in Crime No. 365/2025 was accordingly dismissed.

The trial court was permitted to proceed with the trial and conclude it expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court.