Bail granted after compromise, release of the disputed amount to the complainant, and filing of the charge-sheet.

The six applicants were arrested in Crime No. 524/2026 registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 112, 308 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicants assured the complainant, Ramnarayan Singh Porte, that they would arrange a JCB to level his agricultural land, received ₹2,00,000 in cash and a further ₹7,00,000 withdrawn from Punjab National Bank, Kota, but thereafter failed to perform the work and fled with the total amount of ₹9,00,000.

The applicants were arrested on 2 July 2026, and the alleged amount was seized from them. Following investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet.

The applicants claimed that levelling work had commenced on approximately three acres of the complainant’s land, but a dispute arose regarding the agreed payment and the complainant prevented completion of the work. They relied on a compromise and agreement dated 17 July 2026.

The complainant subsequently received ₹9,00,000 on supurdnama pursuant to an order dated 23 July 2026 passed by the JMFC, Kota.

The applicants had remained in custody since 2 July 2026, and one applicant had criminal antecedents, though bail had been granted in two matters.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the allegations and investigation material disclosed the applicants’ involvement and that release of the money did not by itself justify bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the applicants’ period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the necessity for further custodial interrogation, the possibility of the trial taking substantial time, and the surrounding circumstances, including the alleged compromise and restoration of the disputed amount.

The offences alleged were under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 112, 308 and 3(5) of the BNS.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the dispute appeared to arise from the parties’ agreement concerning the levelling of the complainant’s agricultural land through a JCB.

Without determining the applicants’ guilt or commenting on the merits, it gave weight to the compromise between the parties and the fact that the entire alleged amount of ₹9,00,000 had been released to the complainant on supurdnama.

The applicants had been in custody since 2 July 2026, the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed; consequently, their further custodial interrogation was not considered necessary.

Since the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted, notwithstanding the State’s objection based on the seriousness of the allegations.

The High Court directed that Bablu, Amur Khan, Ameen Khan, Habeem Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Mohammad Achchan be released on bail in Crime No. 524/2026 upon furnishing individual personal bonds with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings concerning non-appearance or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of their statements under Section 351 BNSS.

The order was made without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.