Bail Granted in Matrimonial Data Theft Case Alleging IPC 420 Due to Charge Sheet Filing and Parity.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on 31/01/2026 in connection with Crime No. 32/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused, owners of the website Vivaah Parichay.com, fraudulently copied bride and groom biodata from the complainant’s website (Devangan Rishta Matrimony) to create fake profiles on their own platform.

The applicant was charged under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, there was a significant delay in lodging the FIR (incident of 2021, FIR in 2025), and that co-accused individuals had already been granted anticipatory bail by the trial court.

1. 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 detention.

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

Sections 420 (Cheating) and 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under which the crime was registered.

Section 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 (failure to appear), and Section 351 (examination of accused) of the BNSS and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court evaluated the merits of the bail application by balancing the nature of the allegations against the procedural status of the case. It noted that the charge sheet had already been filed before the competent court, suggesting that custodial interrogation was no longer required.

The Court placed significant weight on the principle of parity, observing that co-accused persons (Sema and Deepak Devangan) had been granted anticipatory bail by the trial court.

The Court considered the applicant's duration of incarceration since January 2026 and the likelihood that the trial would not conclude in the near future.

It determined that the applicant's continued detention was unnecessary provided that stringent conditions were imposed to ensure his presence during trial and to prevent the abuse of liberty.

The holding was based on the period of detention, the filing of the charge sheet, and the grant of bail to co-accused.

The release is subject to specific conditions: (i) no seeking of adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates per Section 269 BNS; (iii) liability under Section 209 BNS for failure to appear after proclamation under Section 84 BNSS; and (iv) mandatory personal appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.