Regular bail warranted where the accused merely provided a bank account and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 128/2026 registered at Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318, 112(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that between 2019 and 2024, the applicant, in association with co-accused Tikaram Shriwas and Rajeshwar Sahu, opened an HDFC Bank account in his name and allowed it to be used as a mule account. An amount of ₹1,32,000 allegedly derived from cyber fraud was credited into that account in three instalments.

The applicant was also alleged to have received approximately ₹11,16,399 in an Axis Bank account, in relation to which a separate crime was pending; he had already been granted bail in that matter after substantial custody.

The applicant contended that his role was limited to providing the bank account, that he lacked knowledge of the fraudulent transactions, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that co-accused Vansh Dewangan, whose accounts were allegedly used similarly, had been granted anticipatory bail.

The State opposed bail, relying on the applicant’s memorandum statement that he had provided his identity documents and handed over the account for ₹15,000–₹20,000.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of permitting his bank account to be used for receiving proceeds of cyber fraud?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the basis of his limited alleged role, completion of investigation, substantial custody, and parity with co-accused Vansh Dewangan?

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

The Court considered the general bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the accused’s role, the likelihood of further custodial interrogation, the stage of the proceedings, and the expected duration of trial.

It also applied the principle of parity, observing that similarly placed co-accused may receive comparable relief where their alleged roles are substantially similar.

The Court further treated filing of the charge-sheet and completion of investigation as relevant circumstances against the necessity of continued custodial detention.

The substantive allegations arose under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318, 112(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court found that the prosecution material attributed to the applicant primarily the act of opening and providing his HDFC Bank account to the co-accused for consideration of ₹15,000–₹20,000, while the principal allegation concerning operation and utilisation of the account was directed against Tikaram Shriwas and Rajeshwar Sahu.

Although ₹1,32,000 allegedly derived from cyber fraud had been credited into the applicant’s account, the Court noted that the applicant had already undergone substantial custody in the connected matter, had been granted bail therein, and no further custodial interrogation was required because the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court also considered the grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused Vansh Dewangan in the same crime and held that the applicant’s case was substantially similar for purposes of parity.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, these factors cumulatively justified release on regular bail.

The bail was subject to conditions that the applicant would not influence or threaten persons 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 disposal of the case.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Court for compliance.