Second bail application rejected absent substantial change in circumstances in organized cyber fraud cases.

The applicant filed a second regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The prosecution alleged that the applicant facilitated the operation of 128 "mule" bank accounts used for illegal monetary transactions totaling ₹64,10,855

The investigation originated from a Ministry of Home Affairs report regarding cyber fraud

The applicant was arrested on March 27, 2025, and a charge-sheet has since been filed

The applicant’s first bail application (MCRC No. 966/2026) was rejected on merits on February 28, 2026

The applicant contended he was a driver whose documents were misused by another individual and sought parity with co-accused persons who were granted bail by the Supreme Court and the High Court

1. Whether the applicant demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances to justify the grant of a second bail application after a prior rejection on merits?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail based on the principle of parity with co-accused persons?

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail

It followed the established judicial principle that a second bail application is maintainable only upon showing a "substantial change in circumstances"

The court also considered the substantive provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, specifically Section 111 (Organized Crime) and Section 317 (dealing with stolen property/financial fraud)

Furthermore, it applied the principle that parity in bail is not an absolute right if the roles of the accused are distinguishable or if other similarly situated co-accused have been denied bail

The court determined that the applicant failed to present any new grounds or material changes in circumstances since the rejection of his first bail application

The court noted that the applicant's role in facilitating and operating mule accounts for large-scale cyber fraud had already been considered on merits

Regarding the plea of parity, the court observed that the bail granted to certain co-accused by the Supreme Court was based on distinguishable grounds, whereas the bail application of another similarly situated co-accused, Ajay Sahu, had been rejected by the High Court

The court emphasized the "magnitude of the offence," the organized nature of the transactions, and the "serious economic ramifications" and "inter-State implications" as critical factors in denying the application

The court found the application devoid of merit but granted the trial court liberty to conclude the trial expeditiously