Bail granted in cheating case as charge-sheet is filed despite allegations of multi-crore forged work orders.

The applicant sought regular bail for offenses under Sections 318(4), 338, 340(2), 336(4), and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complainant, Amit Kumar Gupta, alleged that the applicant and co-accused Santosh Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy to defraud him of approximately Rs. 1,59,60,000/-.

The accused lured the complainant with a forged sand supply work order for "Moserware Power Production Company," inducing him to pay for sand costs, royalties, and transportation.

The complainant discovered the fraud when cheques provided as security were dishonored and investigations revealed no such work order or supply existed.

The applicant had been in custody since September 17, 2025, and the charge sheet had already been filed.

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

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

It considered the principles of bail jurisprudence regarding the gravity of the offense, the status of the investigation (filing of the charge sheet), and the criminal history of the accused.

The Court also referenced Section 269 of the BNS regarding non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant and Section 209 of the BNS regarding fraudulent warrants.

The Court balanced the gravity of the alleged financial fraud against the procedural status of the case.

While the State opposed bail citing the magnitude of the scam (Rs. 1.59 Crores) and the use of forged documents, the Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed.

The Court further observed that although the applicant had three criminal antecedents, he had been acquitted in all of them.

Given that the applicant had been in jail since September 2025 and the trial was expected to take a considerable amount of time, the Court found it fit to exercise its discretion in favor of liberty, provided stringent conditions were met to ensure the applicant’s presence during the trial.

The bail is subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear on all trial dates, and must be personally present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply may result in the trial court treating the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail.