Sale of bank accounts for organized digital financial fraud warrants denial of regular bail.

The complainant, Mahesh Kumar Sahu, reported a financial fraud involving ₹12,03,158/- after clicking a malicious APK link received via a WhatsApp group

During the investigation, it was discovered that ₹89,999/- of the defrauded amount was credited to a Bank of Maharashtra account belonging to the applicant

The applicant was arrested on November 10, 2025, and subsequently filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS

The Investigating Officer’s affidavit revealed that the applicant's account had multiple suspicious transactions and was linked to four separate fraud reports across different states

The applicant admitted in his memorandum statement that he had "sold" his bank account and related documents to a third party for ₹5,000/-

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering his admission of selling his bank account which was subsequently used for cyber-fraud

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides the High Court's discretionary power to grant regular bail

Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

The court analyzed the applicant's involvement by linking the defrauded funds directly to his bank account

It highlighted the applicant's voluntary admission of selling his banking credentials for a nominal fee of ₹5,000/-, which the court viewed as an act facilitating organized digital crime

The court reasoned that such a modus operandi reflects a well-orchestrated financial fraud that causes substantial public harm and destabilizes the banking system

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant is a subject of multiple complaints in different states, indicating a recurring involvement in digital financial crimes

Consequently, the court found the gravity of the organized nature of the offence and its impact on the economy sufficient to override the fact that the charge sheet had been filed and the applicant had been in custody for several months

The bail application was rejected

The trial court was directed to be informed of the order