Absence of criminal antecedents and the likelihood of a long trial justify regular bail in forgery and impersonation cases.

The applicant, an auto-rickshaw driver, was arrested on May 27, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 354/2025 registered at Police Station Badnagar, Ujjain.

The prosecution alleges that the applicant’s mother, Shaitan Bai (alias Sita Bai), impersonated a deceased woman named Leela Bai to execute a sale deed in favor of one Ravindra Singh in 2013.

The applicant is accused of facilitating the opening of a bank account using a forged Aadhar ID created via forged biometrics in the name of the deceased.

The applicant moved his first bail application seeking regular bail on grounds of false implication and parity, noting he has been in custody since May 2025.

Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of allegations and the period of incarceration.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

The charges involved Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to cheating and forgery.

The court also considered the principle of Parity, noting that co-accused Ravindra Singh had already been granted bail, and Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 CrPC) regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

The Court observed that while the allegations involve forgery and impersonation, no documents were seized directly at the instance of the applicant.

It noted that the investigation is complete and a final report has been submitted, meaning custodial interrogation is no longer required.

The Court evaluated the applicant’s socio-economic status as an auto-rickshaw driver with no prior criminal antecedents and responsibilities toward a dependent family.

Furthermore, since a co-ordinate Bench had extended the benefit of bail to co-accused Ravindra Singh, and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court found no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration, especially as there was no evident risk of the applicant fleeing or tampering with evidence.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions, including regular attendance at hearings, refraining from committing similar offences, and not influencing witnesses.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and do not reflect an opinion on the merits of the trial.