Bail granted for paddy misappropriation where charge-sheet is filed and no criminal antecedents exist.

The applicant, the Incharge of a paddy procurement center, was arrested on 23.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 94/2025.

It is alleged that during the Kharif year 2024-25, an enquiry by the Tehsildar and Food Inspector revealed misappropriation of paddy.

Specifically, while a Delivery Memo (DM) was issued for 875 gunny bags for Bholenath Industries, CCTV footage and registers indicated that only 500 bags were actually loaded onto the truck.

The applicant filed this First Bail Application seeking regular bail, contending false implication and noting that the charge-sheet has already been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the period of detention.

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

The case involved substantive offenses under Sections 318(3) (Cheating), 318(4) (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court followed established judicial principles regarding bail: assessing the gravity of the offense, the absence of criminal antecedents, the completion of the investigation (filing of charge-sheet), and the parity for the accused when a co-accused has been granted relief.

The Court examined the nature and gravity of the allegations involving the discrepancy of 375 gunny bags of paddy.

It noted that the investigation concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet, meaning the applicant's custodial interrogation was no longer required for evidence collection.

The Court highlighted that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had already been detained since 23.12.2025.

Crucially, the Court observed that a co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, supporting the applicant's claim for relief.

Given that the trial was expected to take a considerable amount of time, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The holding was contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including non-interference with evidence and mandatory appearance at all trial proceedings under penalty of Section 269 BNS or Section 84 BNSS.

The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, granting the relief sought due to the period of detention and lack of antecedents.