Absence of incriminating bank transactions and filing of charge sheet justify grant of regular bail.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on July 24, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 493/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused Amit Mishra and Ayush Sinha, facilitated online cricket betting by using the bank accounts, ATM cards, and SIM cards of third parties, specifically one Suraj Yadav, in exchange for commissions.

Suraj Yadav’s statement alleged that the applicant induced him to open accounts in multiple banks and hand over the credentials for betting operations.

Following investigations, a charge sheet was filed for offenses under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant sought regular bail, contending he was falsely implicated and that no illicit funds were withdrawn from or found in his possession.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the duration of his custody and the nature of the evidence.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

Substantive charges against the applicant were registered under Sections 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence/giving false information), and 111(2) (organized crime) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Procedural requirements of Section 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 (punishment for non-appearance), and Section 351 (evidence to be taken in presence of accused) of the BNSS and BNS regarding bail conditions.

The Court evaluated the application by weighing the severity of the allegations against the evidentiary findings and the applicant's period of incarceration.

Although the State Counsel opposed bail by highlighting six criminal antecedents and the specific allegations of facilitating illegal betting, the Court noted a critical finding in the Investigating Officer’s personal affidavit: there were no recorded transactions in the bank account of the applicant himself.

The Court further observed that the applicant had been in jail since July 24, 2025, and that the charge sheet had already been filed.

Given that the trial was likely to be protracted, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's participation in the trial.

The Court held that the lack of financial transactions in the applicant's account and the completion of the investigation (filing of the charge sheet) justified the grant of bail.

The relief was made subject to several conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with appearances during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.