Regular bail granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.

The applicant, aged about 20 years, was arrested on 12 March 2026 in connection with Crime No. 116/2025 registered at Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution case was based on information obtained from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre’s Coordination Portal, which identified 15 bank accounts allegedly used as mule accounts for receiving and transferring cyber-fraud proceeds. These accounts had allegedly received an aggregate amount of ₹7,59,343 between 1 January 2024 and 31 January 2025.

After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent court.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending that he was innocent, had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 12 March 2026, and was similarly situated to three co-accused who had already been granted bail by the trial court on 23 March 2026.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the grant of bail to the co-accused or the applicant’s parity with them.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the filing of the charge-sheet, his lack of criminal antecedents, the period of custody, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of the trial.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with three co-accused who had already been granted bail and whose cases were stated to be identical to his.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s custody period, the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, the likely duration of the trial, and the principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The alleged offences were considered under Sections 317(2), 317(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that the applicant was involved in operating or using a mule bank account for receiving and transferring ₹7,59,343 allegedly obtained through cyber fraud.

However, it found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, and he had remained in custody since 12 March 2026.

Most significantly, three co-accused had already been granted bail by the trial court and the State did not dispute that the applicant stood on the same footing as those accused.

Considering these circumstances and the likelihood that the trial would take further time, the Court held that continued detention was not justified, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court further directed that certified copies of the order be supplied to the trial court for compliance.