Bail granted after charge-sheet filing, given clean antecedents and likely delay in trial.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 182 of 2026, registered for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that applicant No. 1 induced the complainant to buy coins said to be saleable abroad for a substantial amount. At a meeting on 26 May 2026, the applicants allegedly showed the complainant coins, received Rs. 30,000 and fled; the complainant reported the incident two days later.

The applicants argued that applicants Nos. 2–4 were not named in the FIR and were implicated following applicant No. 1’s disclosure statement; they also relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, their custody since 30 May 2026, absence of criminal antecedents and the likely duration of trial.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged direct involvement of the applicants and recovery of Rs. 30,000.

1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations and the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the applicants’ custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents and likely delay in trial supported their release on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the allegations against the applicants, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, criminal antecedents and the likely time for conclusion of the trial.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the State’s allegations, including the alleged inducement and recovery of Rs. 30,000, alongside the applicants’ submissions that the charge-sheet had been filed, they had no criminal antecedents and trial would take time.

Having weighed the nature and gravity of the allegations against those circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail, without expressing any further opinion on the merits.

The Court allowed the bail application. It directed that each applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The applicants must not intimidate or induce persons acquainted with the case facts, must not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and must attend every hearing until the trial concludes.