Bail granted on parity subject to phased deposit of ₹2,00,056 in fixed deposit.

The applicant was implicated in 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. He had been in custody since 22 September 2025. This was his fourth bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; his first application had been withdrawn, while he had previously obtained temporary bail on two occasions

The prosecution alleged that a retired government school principal was subjected to a “digital arrest” cyber-fraud by persons impersonating police and CBI officials. The complainant was allegedly induced to transfer approximately ₹20,81,382 through RTGS transactions into accounts provided by the accused persons

The applicant contended that the material against him consisted only of disclosure statements of co-accused persons, that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, and that co-accused Rahul and Sopan had been granted bail. He also offered to deposit ₹2,00,056 under protest

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

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS/Section 439 of the CrPC, particularly in view of the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused persons, his prolonged custody, and completion of investigation?

Whether bail could be granted subject to phased deposit of ₹2,00,056 and other conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence and protect the interests of the proceedings?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the applicant’s period of custody, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the apparent evidentiary material, parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail, and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court also imposed conditions under Section 437(3) of the CrPC to ensure the applicant’s regular appearance and proper conduct during trial.

The substantive offences alleged were under the relevant provisions of the BNS and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The Court did not determine the merits of the prosecution case but assessed whether continued detention was justified at the bail stage.

It noted that the applicant had remained in custody since 22 September 2025, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, and co-accused Rahul and Sopan had been granted bail in comparable circumstances.

These factors supported the applicant’s claim based on parity and prolonged custody, notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged cyber-fraud.

Balancing these considerations, the Court exercised its bail jurisdiction in a phased manner and required a monetary deposit, alongside a bail bond, local surety and statutory conduct conditions.

The applicant was directed to deposit a total of ₹2,00,056, with ₹1,00,000 to be deposited before release in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank and the remaining ₹1,00,056 to be deposited in three equal instalments 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 the trial court.

Release was further ordered on furnishing a ₹50,000 personal bond with one local surety of the like amount, subject to regular appearance, compliance with Section 437(3) CrPC, and the possibility of cancellation of bail upon violation of the conditions.