Alleged ₹15 Lakh Plot-Fraud Accused Gets Bail After 2 Months; P&H HC Says Another FIR Alone Cannot Deny Relief

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging his involvement in a conspiracy to defraud the complainant in a property transaction involving a plot allegedly owned by another person.

The petitioner was arrested on 3 September 2026; the challan was presented on 15 September 2026, and 12 prosecution witnesses were cited, none of whom had been examined by the time of the hearing.

The petitioner had undergone two months and five days of custody.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s involvement in another FIR.

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the Court to grant regular bail.

The Court applied the principles in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1978 SC 429, that bail discretion must account for personal liberty, the interests of justice and society, and the need to secure the accused’s attendance, while guarding against absconding, evidence tampering, and threats to public peace.

It also relied on Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi), (1978) 1 SCC 118, which identifies securing the accused’s appearance as the primary inquiry in bail decisions.

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, holds that bail is neither punitive nor preventive and that pre-trial detention should be based on necessity.

The Court further relied on Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586, among other authorities, for the principle that antecedents alone do not necessarily justify refusing bail where the circumstances of the case support its grant.

The Court considered that the challan had been filed, the petitioner had spent over two months in custody, and none of the 12 cited prosecution witnesses had yet been examined; trial was therefore likely to take time.

The competing arguments raised issues to be determined at trial, and the Court avoided assessing their merits.

It found no tangible indication that the petitioner would abscond or interfere with prosecution evidence.

Although the petitioner was reported to be involved in another FIR, that circumstance alone did not warrant refusal of bail in this case.

In light of the governing bail principles, continued pre-trial detention was not justified.

The Court imposed conditions, including prohibitions on misuse of liberty, evidence tampering, absence from trial, and committing further offences; it also required the petitioner to deposit any passport and comply with specified phone-number and trial-attendance requirements.

The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.