Anticipatory bail granted on grounds of parity and absence of criminal antecedents in financial fraud case.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 322/2025 involving alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The prosecution alleged that in December 2024, the applicant and co-accused induced the complainant to pay ₹4,50,000 for a government teaching job and a further ₹5,50,000 for a private company registration under a government scheme.

The complainant alleged that neither the job nor the promised benefits were provided, and no refund was issued despite transfers totaling ₹10,00,000.

The applicant contended that the complainant had actually worked for the company for three months at a salary of ₹22,000, the dispute was purely civil/financial, there was an unexplained eight-month delay in filing the FIR, and a co-accused had already been granted bail.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, based on the principle of parity and the nature of the transaction.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

It adhered to the principle of judicial parity, noting that when a similarly situated co-accused has been granted relief, the same may be extended to others provided the circumstances align.

The court also considered the lack of criminal antecedents and the likelihood of a prolonged trial as qualifying factors for discretionary relief.

The Court weighed the prosecution's allegations of fraud against the applicant's defense that the transaction was a bona fide business arrangement where the complainant had actually received training and employment.

A significant factor in the Court's reasoning was the principle of parity, as co-accused Gauri Shankar Rao had already been granted anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 61/2026.

The Court further noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record and that both the investigation and trial were expected to take considerable time.

Without delving into the final merits of the civil versus criminal nature of the dispute, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not necessitated under the present circumstances.

The holding directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond with one surety.

The relief was made subject to conditions including: non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, submission of verified Aadhaar details, and a mandate not to engage in similar offences in the future.