The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted regular bail to a 21-year-old student accused of facilitating mule accounts in a high-value cyber fraud case. While acknowledging the gravity of the offence under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66D of the IT Act, the Court emphasized the applicant's young age, lack of criminal antecedents, and the absence of evidence suggesting flight risk or witness tampering. The judgment underscores the judiciary's nuanced approach to bail in financial crimes, balancing investigative needs with individual liberty.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Rohit Bhagoria, was arrested on 17.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station - Crime Branch, Jabalpur. The case involves a cyber fraud scheme where the complainant, Archana Singh, was induced to invest Rs. 2,27,75,000 in a fraudulent online application linked to the "Premji Group." The complainant alleged that Rajeev Ayuni, impersonating the Chief Operating Officer of Ajeem Premji Group, and Kritika Thakur, assisted in luring her into transferring funds to designated accounts under the promise of high returns. Upon discovering the fraud, the complainant filed a complaint leading to the registration of the FIR.
Key Facts
- The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS (cheating and criminal breach of trust) and Section 66D of the IT Act (impersonation for cheating using computer resources).
- During investigation, it was revealed that Abhishek Vishwakarma, an associate of the main accused, induced the applicant and another individual, Tarun Ahirwar, to provide their bank accounts in exchange for commission.
- The applicant’s bank account received Rs. 3.50 lakhs from the fraudulent transactions, and his mobile phone SIM was used for online transactions.
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 17.11.2025.
- The applicant is a 21-year-old student with no criminal antecedents and is financially dependent on his family.
Procedural History
- 17.11.2025: Applicant arrested and placed in judicial custody.
- 06.05.2026: Applicant filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 20450 of 2026 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail.
- The final report was submitted upon completion of the investigation.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- The applicant is falsely implicated and is not the beneficiary of the fraud.
- He was merely a victim of Abhishek Vishwakarma’s allurement of commission for providing his bank account.
- The applicant offered to deposit Rs. 1.75 lakhs (half of the amount deposited in his account) to demonstrate his bona fides.
- Custodial interrogation is unnecessary as the prosecution’s case relies on the money trail and bank statements.
- The trial will take time, and continued incarceration would cause undue hardship.
- The applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.
For the State
- The State opposed the bail application on the grounds of the gravity of the offence.
- However, the State fairly conceded that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, arguing that his continued incarceration was unjustified given his age, lack of criminal history, and the nature of the evidence against him.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits the grant of bail to an accused involved in a high-value cyber fraud case, where the evidence is primarily documentary (money trail and bank statements), and the accused is a young student with no criminal antecedents.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant’s counsel argued that the applicant was not the beneficiary of the fraud and was merely a victim of inducement by Abhishek Vishwakarma.
- The prosecution’s case relied on documentary evidence, reducing the risk of tampering or witness influence.
- The applicant’s young age, lack of criminal history, and socio-economic status were highlighted to argue against the necessity of continued incarceration.
- The applicant’s willingness to deposit Rs. 1.75 lakhs was presented as a gesture of good faith.
For the State
- The State opposed the bail application primarily on the grounds of the gravity of the offence, emphasizing the large sum involved (Rs. 2.27 crores) and the serious nature of cyber fraud.
- However, the State did not dispute the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents or his status as a student.
The Court's Analysis
The Court carefully weighed the rival contentions and the circumstances of the case. Key observations included:
- The applicant’s involvement was limited to providing his bank account in exchange for commission, and he was not the primary beneficiary of the fraud.
- The evidence against the applicant was primarily documentary (money trail and bank statements), reducing the likelihood of tampering or witness influence.
- The applicant’s age (21 years), status as a student, and lack of criminal antecedents were significant factors in favor of granting bail.
- The Court noted that the trial would take time to conclude, and continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to the applicant.
The Court also emphasized that the observations made were for the purpose of the bail application only and would not influence the merits of the trial. The judgment relied on the principle that bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence, especially when the accused’s profile and the nature of evidence suggest no flight risk or threat to the investigation.
"Considering the rival contentions and overall circumstances of the case, in the light of aforestated facts, but without commenting on the merits, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail."
The Verdict
The Court allowed the bail application with the following directions:
- The applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount.
- The applicant shall deposit Rs. 1.75 lakhs before the trial court, which shall be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit of a nationalized bank. This amount, along with accrued interest, shall be disbursed as per the trial court’s instructions.
- The applicant must comply with the following conditions:
- Remain present on every date of hearing as directed by the trial court.
- Refrain from committing any offence of a similar nature.
- Not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- Not tamper with evidence or pressurize witnesses.
- Ensure compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the examination of witnesses during the trial.
- The order shall remain effective until the conclusion of the trial.
- In case of breach of any bail conditions, the trial court may cancel the bail without any impediment from this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Not Automatic, But Gravity Alone Not Sufficient
- Courts are increasingly recognizing that gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail, especially when the accused’s profile (e.g., young age, lack of criminal history) and the nature of evidence (documentary) suggest no flight risk or threat to the investigation.
- Practitioners should emphasize the accused’s socio-economic status, lack of criminal antecedents, and the absence of evidence suggesting tampering or witness influence.
Mule Accounts and Vicarious Liability
- This judgment highlights the legal nuances surrounding mule accounts in cyber fraud cases. While facilitating fraudulent transactions may attract liability, courts may distinguish between active beneficiaries and those induced by others.
- Accused persons who can demonstrate that they were victims of inducement (e.g., allurement of commission) may have a stronger case for bail.
Financial Surety as a Mitigating Factor
- The Court’s acceptance of the applicant’s offer to deposit Rs. 1.75 lakhs (half of the amount involved) as a gesture of bona fides sets a precedent for using financial surety as a mitigating factor in bail applications.
- Practitioners can argue that such deposits demonstrate the accused’s willingness to cooperate and mitigate losses, thereby reducing the perceived risk to the investigation.
Compliance with Trial Obligations
- The bail conditions imposed, including compliance with Section 346 BNSS (examination of witnesses), underscore the importance of strict adherence to trial obligations post-bail.
- Failure to comply with these conditions can lead to cancellation of bail, as explicitly noted in the judgment.
