Bail granted despite criminal antecedents where co-accused secured bail and trial faced prolonged delay.

The applicants—Mrigendra Singh Baghel, Ranvijay Singh Baghel and Dhirendra Singh Baghel—were arrested in Crime No. 483/2017 registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, for offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the PDI Act, 2005.

The prosecution alleged that Sai Prakash Properties Development Limited, through its agent Chaman Verma, induced the complainant to purchase seven policies by promising returns of approximately three times the investment, but failed to make payment upon maturity; the agent allegedly acted in collusion with the company’s directors.

The applicants contended that they were innocent, that the charge-sheet had been filed, that the trial would take substantial time, and that co-accused Pushpendra Singh Baghel and Sandeep Shankar had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the applicants’ involvement in other similar cases: four cases against Applicant No. 1, seven against Applicant No. 2 and three against Applicant No. 3.

The applicants had been in custody since 26 January 2022, 14 July 2023 and 5 September 2022, respectively.

Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite their alleged involvement in several other similar cases?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, prolonged incarceration, likely delay in conclusion of the trial, and bail granted to co-accused justified release on bail?

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the PDI Act, 2005.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the anticipated duration of the trial, the applicants’ criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.

No independent precedent governing the merits of bail was cited; the Court relied on the bail orders in favour of co-accused Pushpendra Singh Baghel and Sandeep Shankar.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the applicants’ multiple criminal cases, but noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial investigation.

It further found that the applicants had undergone substantial periods of incarceration and that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

The grant of bail to co-accused Pushpendra Singh Baghel by the Supreme Court and Sandeep Shankar by the High Court supported the applicants’ claim for parity, a fact which the State was unable to dispute.

Balancing these factors against the applicants’ antecedents and the nature of the allegations, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 BNSS in favour of bail, subject to conditions intended to secure their attendance and prevent delay or misuse of liberty.

The applicants were prohibited from seeking adjournments when witnesses were present, required to remain present on scheduled dates, and made subject to consequences for absence, misuse of bail or non-appearance pursuant to proclamation proceedings.

They were also required to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of their statements under Section 351 BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.