Second bail was denied where direct evidence supported serious cyber-fraud allegations, despite bail granted to a distinguishable co-accused.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 322/2025 registered at Police Station Kondagaon for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 111(2), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that a Cyber Cell complaint concerning bank accounts held by co-accused Lokeshwar Hirwani and Kamleshwar Nag revealed transactions amounting to ₹72,09,424 between 1 January 2024 and 8 March 2025.

The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits on 11 March 2026.

His subsequent Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 24 August 2026.

In the present second bail application, he relied on the bail granted to a co-accused and the slow progress of trial, with only one of fourteen witnesses examined while he had remained in custody since 10 November 2025.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite rejection of his earlier bail application on merits and dismissal of his SLP as withdrawn?

Whether the bail granted to a co-accused and the delay in conclusion of trial constituted sufficient grounds for granting bail on the principle of parity?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In considering a successive bail application, the Court took into account the prior rejection of bail on merits, the absence of circumstances warranting a different conclusion, the gravity of the alleged offences, and the material collected during investigation.

The principle of parity was applied conditionally: bail to a co-accused does not automatically entitle another accused to bail where the allegations and evidentiary material against them are materially distinguishable.

The Court found that the applicant faced serious allegations concerning the facilitation of fraudulent transactions through multiple bank accounts for wrongful gain and that the investigation disclosed direct evidence of his involvement in the alleged cyber-fraud activity.

The earlier bail application had been rejected on merits, and the applicant’s SLP had thereafter been withdrawn, which weighed against reconsideration in the absence of a sufficient change in circumstances.

Although the applicant relied on the bail granted to a co-accused and the fact that only one of fourteen witnesses had been examined, the Court held that the allegations against the co-accused were distinguishable and therefore parity was unavailable.

Having regard to the gravity of the alleged offences and the applicant’s alleged role, the Court declined bail at that stage.

It held that the prior rejection of bail, the withdrawal of the SLP, the serious allegations and direct material indicating the applicant’s involvement, and the distinguishable role of the co-accused justified refusal of bail.

The second bail application under Section 483 BNSS was accordingly rejected.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.