Bail granted on parity and prolonged custody, subject to phased monetary deposit.

The applicant sought his third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Crime No. 302/2025 registered at Police Station Satwas, District Dewas, for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, a retired government school principal, was defrauded of approximately ₹20,81,382 through a “digital arrest” cyber-fraud scheme involving persons impersonating police and CBI officials.

The applicant had been in custody since 2 August 2025; his first bail application was dismissed and his second was withdrawn.

The applicant relied on the absence of evidence apart from disclosure statements, parity with co-accused Rahul who had been granted bail, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, prolonged custody, and his willingness to deposit ₹2,50,000 under protest.

The State opposed bail on the ground of the gravity of the offence.

Whether the applicant should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS/Section 439 of the CrPC, considering his prolonged custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet and the grant of bail to a co-accused on parity?

Whether bail could appropriately be granted subject to phased deposit of ₹2,50,000 and compliance with conditions concerning appearance and conduct during trial?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empower the High Court to grant bail in cases involving an accused in custody.

It also applied the principle of parity, under which similarly situated co-accused may ordinarily receive comparable bail relief, subject to the individual facts of the case.

The Court considered the statutory conditions under Section 437(3) of the CrPC governing the accused’s conduct and attendance during trial.

The alleged offences were considered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The Court noted that co-accused Rahul had already been granted bail and that the applicant had remained in custody since 2 August 2025.

It also took into account that the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet filed, reducing the immediate need for continued custodial detention.

Although the State emphasized the seriousness of the alleged cyber-fraud, the Court found that the applicant’s claim of parity, prolonged incarceration and the stage of the proceedings justified bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court adopted a phased approach requiring the applicant or another person on his behalf to deposit ₹2,50,000, while securing his presence through a bail bond, local surety and the conditions under Section 437(3) of the CrPC.

The applicant was directed to deposit ₹1,00,000 in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank before release and to deposit the remaining ₹1,50,000 in three equal monthly instalments of ₹50,000 within three months of release.

The deposits were to be subject to the final outcome of the trial and the receipts were to be produced before and endorsed by the trial court.

Upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹50,000 with one local surety in the like amount, the applicant was ordered to be released on bail, subject to regular appearance, compliance with Section 437(3) CrPC and the other conditions imposed by the trial court.

The application was accordingly allowed and disposed of.