Regular bail granted on parity and prolonged incarceration in “mule account” cyber fraud prosecution.

The applicant, Kamleshwar, was arrested on August 7, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 218/2025 for allegedly providing his Axis Bank account as a "mule account" to facilitate organized online fraud.

Investigation revealed that Rs. 2,22,871/- obtained through cyber fraud was credited to his account, of which Rs. 2,22,419/- was subsequently debited.

This is the applicant's second bail application filed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS); his first application (MCRC No. 2753 of 2026) was dismissed on merits on April 28, 2026, due to the nature of the organized financial fraud.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused and prolonged incarceration.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS based on the principle of parity and prolonged period of judicial custody.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

The Court also relied on the legal principle of parity, ensuring that similarly situated accused persons (such as co-accused Anurag Sharma, who was granted bail in MCRC No. 5481/2026) receive equal treatment under the law.

The court considered the lack of criminal antecedents and the impact of prolonged incarceration as mitigating factors in bail jurisprudence.

The Court observed that while the first bail application was dismissed due to the seriousness of the cyber fraud, significant changes in circumstances justified a reconsideration.

Specifically, the Court noted that the applicant had remained in judicial custody since August 7, 2025, constituting a prolonged period of incarceration.

The Court analyzed the status of the co-accused, Anurag Sharma, noting that he had already been granted bail by the same Court on June 23, 2026.

Applying the principle of parity, the Court determined that since the applicant shared a similar role and had no prior criminal record, there was no justification for continued detention after the charge-sheet had been filed.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: he must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend all court proceedings (specifically for framing of charges and recording statements), and must comply with Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita regarding attendance and appearance.