Bail granted on parity and charge-sheet filing despite criminal antecedents and high-value cheating allegations.

The applicant, Nagesh Kumar Dhara, was arrested on June 12, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 675/2025 registered at Police Station Supela

It is alleged that between September and December 2022, the applicant induced the complainant and others to pay Rs. 83,80,000 under the false pretext of providing a travel agency franchise

A charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, contending the dispute was civil/contractual, noting that a co-accused had been granted bail, and highlighting his incarceration since June 2025

The State opposed bail, citing the magnitude of the fraud and the applicant's two criminal antecedents from 2019 and 2024

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the accusations and the trial's progress

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

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 420 (Cheating) and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The court further referenced procedural mandates under the BNSS, specifically Section 269 (attendance), Section 84 (proclamations), Section 209 (non-appearance), and Section 351 (accused's statement) to set bail conditions

The Court weighed the gravity of the alleged financial fraud (Rs. 83,80,000) and the applicant’s criminal history against the procedural status of the case

The Court noted that while the offence is serious and the applicant has two pending criminal antecedents, the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been submitted

Regarding the trial's progress, the Court observed that although charges have been framed, no prosecution witnesses have been examined to date

Given that the applicant has been in custody since June 12, 2025, the trial is likely to be prolonged, and a co-accused (Arti) has already been granted bail by the trial court, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was not warranted

The holding clarified that the duration of incarceration and the status of the trial justified bail despite the seriousness of the charges

The release was made subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear at every hearing personally or through counsel, and must be present in person for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS, failing which the trial court may treat such default as an abuse of liberty