Bail granted on parity and charge-sheet filing despite allegations of financial fraud and criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Balbir Singh, filed a first bail application after being arrested on November 25, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 152/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his co-accused mother (an LIC agent) induced the complainant and others to invest in fraudulent LIC policies by promising double returns, totaling a loss of Rs. 45,53,780/-.

It was further alleged that forged documents were used and funds were diverted to the applicant’s bank account.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, citing a lack of documentary evidence for forgery and claiming parity with co-accused Devendra Sen, who was previously granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the allegations of misappropriation and the principle of parity.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), governing the grant of regular bail.

Sections 420 (Cheating), 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant/agent), 467, 468, 471 (Forgery), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence), 120B (Criminal conspiracy), and 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court adhered to the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence and considered the impact of criminal antecedents under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—specifically the preparation of forged receipts and the direct crediting of misappropriated funds into the applicant's account—against the procedural status of the case.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since November 2025 and that the investigation had concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet.

Crucially, the Court observed that co-accused Devendra Sen had already been granted bail in March 2026 and determined that the applicant's case was identical, thus warranting parity.

Despite the presence of two criminal antecedents from 2025 and 2026, the Court found that the duration of custody and the status of the trial justified his release.

The holding directed his release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at trial, non-seeking of adjournments during witness testimony, and compliance with Section 269 of the BNS regarding absence; further directing the trial court to endeavor to conclude proceedings within one year.