Bail granted for alleged bank fraud as charge-sheet was filed and trial conclusion would be delayed.

The applicants filed their first bail applications following their arrest on January 14, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 312/2025.

The prosecution alleged that in 2020, staff at Bandhan Bank, Baikunthpur Branch, including the Branch Manager, embezzled sanctioned loan amounts totaling ₹34,00,000 intended for approximately 65-70 beneficiaries.

The applicants were implicated primarily based on the memorandum statement of the Branch Manager.

Counsel for the applicants argued they were falsely implicated, a charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial would be prolonged.

The State opposed bail, noting one criminal antecedent against applicant Durgesh Ambar.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of regular bail considering the nature of allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, and their period of custody.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The offences charged were under Sections 420 (Cheating), 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant/banker), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Procedural conduct during bail was regulated by Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance, Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons, and Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the presence of the accused for statement recording.

The Court weighed the gravity of the embezzlement allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation was largely complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed against the applicants.

Although the State highlighted a criminal antecedent for applicant Durgesh Ambar, the Court balanced this against the fact that the applicants had been in jail since January 14, 2026, and that the trial's conclusion was likely to take significant time.

The Court determined that continued incarceration was not necessary provided that strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicants' participation in the trial and to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The holding was conditional upon the applicants not seeking unnecessary adjournments, appearing at every trial date (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements), and complying with the judicial process under pain of proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS.