Bail denied for breach of undertaking to deposit funds and lack of material change in circumstances.

The applicant filed her third application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with FIR No. 99/2025.

The applicant was arrested on October 16, 2025, for alleged financial fraud involving more than Rs. 45 lakhs.

The prosecution alleged that the defrauded amount was received in a joint bank account held by the applicant and her husband (the main accused).

The applicant contended she was falsely implicated, had not used electronic modes for the offense, and sought relief on humanitarian grounds as a mother of two, including a child with mental illness.

During previous hearings on March 10 and 17, 2026, the applicant’s counsel undertook to deposit 50% of the disputed amount (Rs. 22,50,000) for the 82-year-old complainant, but later stated she was unable to do so.

1. Whether there were sufficient material changes in circumstances to warrant the grant of bail in a third successive application.

2. Whether the applicant's conduct in offering and subsequently reneging on an undertaking to deposit a portion of the alleged embezzled amount affects the discretionary relief of bail.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The underlying offenses were registered under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 319(2) (cheating by personation), 336(3) (forgery), 338 (forgery of valuable security), and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act (cheating by personation using computer resource).

The court followed the established principle that successive bail applications require a showing of a "substantial change in circumstances" to be entertained.

The Court found that there was no material change in circumstances since the rejection of the previous two bail applications.

Although the applicant argued she was merely a joint account holder, the Court noted the prosecution's claim of her active role in a serious crime involving significant financial loss.

The Court placed heavy emphasis on the applicant’s conduct; she had twice secured time by promising to deposit 50% of the embezzled funds to benefit the elderly complainant, only to back out during the final hearing.

The Court characterized this as an "abuse of precious judicial time" and a deprecated attempt to mislead the court.

Additionally, the Court noted that the main accused (the applicant’s husband) remains absconding, further diminishing the grounds for exercising judicial discretion in the applicant's favor.

The Court officially deprecated the applicant's conduct for wasting judicial time but refrained from imposing heavy costs after considering the totality of the applicant's personal circumstances.

The Miscellaneous Criminal Case was dismissed.