Rejection of bail in online fraud involving substantial financial loss where co-accused applications were previously dismissed.

The applicant, Shakur Ahmad, filed a First Bail Application after being arrested in connection with Crime No. 258/2024 for allegedly committing online fraud

The complainant alleged that on 12.05.2024, she received a call from an individual claiming to deal in jewelry and electronics; she was subsequently induced to pay Rs. 25,20,700/- into various bank accounts as "customs duty"

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity, claiming that co-accused persons were granted bail by the trial court following a compromise

The State opposed the bail, noting that the applicant was part of a conspiracy and that the High Court had previously rejected the bail applications of two other co-accused, Mohammad Saba Karim and Arshad Ansari

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the rejection of bail for similarly situated co-accused by the High Court

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail (equivalent to Section 439 of the CrPC)

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

The court also relied on the principle of judicial consistency/parity, noting that bail should be considered in light of orders passed for co-accused in the same crime

The court examined the case diary and found evidence suggesting the applicant acted in connivance with others to facilitate the transfer of cheated funds into various bank accounts

While the applicant argued for parity based on a trial court order, the High Court observed that it had specifically rejected the bail applications of two other co-accused (MCRC Nos. 3531/2025 and 3789/2025) facing identical allegations

The court determined that the applicant was part of the conspiracy to defraud the complainant of a substantial sum (Rs. 25,20,700/-) and, given the nature of the online fraud and the prior rejections of co-accused's applications by the same court, it was not a fit case for discretionary relief

The holding clarified that the applicant's involvement in the conspiracy and the prior rejection of co-accused's bail applications by the High Court outweighed the applicant's plea for parity with those released by the trial court

The trial court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously