Regular Bail Granted Based on Parity and Completion of Investigation in Cyber Fraud Case

The prosecution alleged a large-scale cyber fraud involving 104 "mule" bank accounts at Utkarsh Small Finance Bank, Raipur, used to receive and transfer proceeds of crime

The applicant, an Airtel agent, allegedly facilitated the fraud by fraudulently activating 40–50 SIM cards in favor of co-accused persons

The investigation, originally triggered by reports to the Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and the 1930 Helpline, led to the applicant's arrest on July 4, 2025

The applicant sought regular bail following the filing of the charge sheet

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

The applicant was charged under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

The Court also relied on the principle of parity, referencing the Supreme Court's grant of bail to co-accused Harmeet Singh @ Yashmit in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15006/2025 and its own prior grant of bail to co-accused Om Arya in MCRC No. 9388/2025

The Court reasoned that the applicant was entitled to bail primarily on the grounds of parity, noting that similarly situated co-accused had already been enlarged on bail by higher and coordinate benches

The Court observed that the charge sheet had been filed and the applicant had been in custody since July 4, 2025

It further noted that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take significant time

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court held that these factors combined warranted the exercise of discretionary power to grant bail

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant’s undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, mandatory attendance at all trial dates per Section 269 of the BNS, and personal appearance during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

Default in these conditions authorizes the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail