Regular bail granted on parity and prolonged custody absent specific allegations of cyber fraud.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 306/2026 registered at Police Station Newai, District Durg, for offences under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, through the Coordination Portal, certain bank accounts were identified as “Layer-1/Mule Accounts” into which amounts allegedly connected with cyber fraud had been credited and subsequently transferred to other accounts.

The applicant was implicated on the allegation that his bank account had been used in the relevant transactions; however, the FIR did not specifically allege that he had himself committed cyber fraud, induced any victim, participated in a fraudulent transaction, or personally obtained wrongful gain.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He relied on the grant of bail to co-accused Bhagwat Prasad Shukla by the Supreme Court and to co-accused Ayush Pandey and Rajendra Kumar Puran by the High Court, invoking parity.

He had remained in judicial custody since 13 June 2026 and submitted that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the offences, the ongoing investigation, the non-filing of the charge-sheet, and the possibility of influencing witnesses, although it accepted that parity could be considered.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused persons and the applicant’s period of custody?

Whether the pendency of the investigation, non-filing of the charge-sheet, seriousness of the offences, and apprehension of witness influence justified denial of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The Court considered the principle of parity, under which an accused may be granted bail where similarly situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, subject to comparable allegations and circumstances.

It also considered the relevant bail factors, including the absence of criminal antecedents, the period of custody, the likely duration of trial, and the need to avoid unnecessary pre-trial detention.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(2), 318(3), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court noted that the applicant’s implication arose principally from the alleged use of his bank account in transactions connected with cyber fraud, while the FIR contained no specific allegation that he had personally committed the cyber fraud, induced any victim, participated in a fraudulent transaction, or obtained wrongful gain.

The Court further found that co-accused Bhagwat Prasad Shukla had been granted bail by the Supreme Court after rejection of his bail application by the High Court, and that Ayush Pandey and Rajendra Kumar Puran had subsequently been granted bail by the High Court.

Applying the principle of parity, and taking into account that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 13 June 2026, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted.

The Court expressly refrained from making any observation on the merits of the case.

It directed that Narendra Kumar Sahu be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions that he would not induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; would not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and would appear before the trial court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.