Bail granted in cheating case citing inordinate delay in FIR and completion of investigation.

The applicant, Kishor Kumar Sharma, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 0729/2024 for allegedly defrauding the complainant and others of a total of Rs. 14 lakh between December 2019 and November 2020. The prosecution alleged that the money was taken under the false pretext of securing appointments for the post of Block Education Officer.

The applicant claimed that he had already returned the complainant's portion of the amount and that the FIR, registered on 16.10.2024, suffered from an unexplained inordinate delay.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since 03.09.2025, and the charge-sheet has already been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the delay in FIR registration and his period of incarceration.

The Court applied the principles governing regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The substantive offences were registered under Sections 420 (Cheating) and 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Procedural conduct for the accused upon release was dictated 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 recording of statements.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—defrauding individuals of Rs. 14 lakh—against several mitigating factors. It noted that the alleged transactions occurred between 2019 and 2020, yet the FIR was not lodged until late 2024, representing an inordinate and unexplained delay.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed. Although the applicant had two previous criminal antecedents, the Court accepted the explanations provided in the bail application. Given that the applicant had been in custody since September 2025, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure his presence during trial.

The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties. The relief was granted 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 permits the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty.