Gurgaon: Supplying ‘mule’ bank accounts to route defrauded money can amount to active participation in a cyberfraud even if the accused never contacted the victim or was part of the WhatsApp group, a city court has ruled.The observation came in a Rs 57.4 lakh online investment fraud case, where the accused was denied bail. The order was passed on Sept 14. Complainant Rhituraj Bordoloi had transferred the amount to multiple bank accounts after being added to a WhatsApp group — 5 Paisa V624 Traders Hub — last year. When he sought to withdraw the profit, he was asked to pay Rs 16 lakh as “service fee” and Rs 15 lakh as “security deposit”, following which he realised he had been duped.A mule account is a bank account used to receive, transfer or conceal illegally obtained money. The account holder may knowingly participate in the activity or may be unaware that their account is being misused.Appearing for Vivek alias Rohit, advocate Payal Khatana argued that he had been falsely implicated on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, had been in custody since Jan 10 and was not a beneficiary account holder and had not contacted the complainant or his wife. She also submitted that the investigation was complete, the challan had been filed and Rs 13.2 lakh had been restored to the complainant.While rejecting the second regular bail plea of Vivek, additional sessions judge Varsha Jain said cyberfrauds were often carried out through people performing different roles and that arranging and supplying bank accounts — through which a victim’s money was routed — prima facie showed the accused’s active participation in the criminal conspiracy.The FIR was registered at Cyber Manesar police station on Aug 29, 2025, under sections 318(4), 61(2) and 241 of BNS and Section 66-D of the IT Act. According to the prosecution case, Bordoloi was added to the group in May 2025. Administrators of the group allegedly induced him to invest in share trading by promising high and assured returns and provided a mobile application for the investments. The application displayed fictitious profits of around Rs 1.1 crore.Investigation, the court noted, indicated that the WhatsApp group and application were part of an organised online investment fraud racket. The money was routed through multiple beneficiary or “mule” accounts to conceal the trail and was later withdrawn or layered further.Public prosecutor Neeraj Atri opposed bail, submitting that Vivek had actively acted as an “aggregator” and, pursuant to the conspiracy, provided the account to co-accused. He also pointed out that a similar offence was registered against him and his earlier bail plea had been dismissed by the same court on May 29.The court noted that the bank accounts used in the case had surfaced in other cyberfraud cases registered by Cyber East Gurugram police and Special Cell, New Delhi, “prima facie” indicating the organised and habitual nature of the activities. It noted that several co-accused had also been denied bail and there was no change in circumstances since Vivek’s previous bail plea.Referring to a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in Suhail vs State of Haryana, the court said cyberfrauds can affect multiple victims and erode public confidence in digital financial transactions. It ultimately held that, given the structured nature of the alleged fraud, Vivek’s role in facilitating accounts on commission and the ongoing investigation to apprehend other accused, the case was not fit for bail at this stage.
