Anticipatory bail granted considering eight-year incarceration in similar cases and parity with previous bail orders.

The applicant, Rajesh Sharma, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was accused in Crime No. 129/2011 for allegedly defrauding parents and students at Dolphin International Group of Schools between 2011 and 2012 by collecting substantial fees without providing services, TCs, or results, and subsequently locking the school premises.

Investigation revealed similar cases registered against the applicant in Raipur and Gobra Nayapara, involving alleged embezzlement of crores of rupees.

The applicant contended that he had already undergone eight years of incarceration in connection with those similar cases and had been granted bail by coordinate benches in those matters.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, given his history of incarceration in similar cases and the grant of bail therein?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC), which governs the power of the High Court and Court of Session to grant bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The court's discretion was guided by the principle of judicial parity and the consideration of prolonged incarceration as a factor in bail matters, noting that the applicant had already served approximately eight years in custody for analogous offences arising from the same series of transactions.

The Court analyzed the applicant’s history of litigation, specifically noting that while the allegations involved serious fraud under Section 420 IPC, the applicant had already endured a "prolonged incarceration of approximately eight years" in related cases (MCRC No. 672/2026 and MCRC No. 661/2026).

The Court observed that coordinate benches had already granted him bail in those similar matters.

Consequently, despite the State's opposition, the Court found that the facts and circumstances—specifically the length of previous detention and the consistency of bail orders in related crimes—justified extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant in the present case.

The grant of bail was subject to conditions including: non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, submission of Aadhaar verification, and a prohibition on committing similar future offences.