Bail granted on parity, subject to phased deposit of ₹2.5 lakh.

The applicant sought bail 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 a retired government school principal was defrauded through a “digital arrest” scheme by persons impersonating police and CBI officials, resulting in transfers of approximately ₹20,81,382 through RTGS transactions.

The applicant had been in custody since 2 August 2025; his first bail application was dismissed, while the second and third applications were withdrawn.

The applicant relied on the grant of bail to co-accused Rahul, asserted lack of incriminating material, stated that investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, and offered to deposit ₹2,50,000 under protest.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS/Section 439 of the CrPC, having regard to his prolonged custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and the bail granted to co-accused Rahul on the ground of parity.

Whether bail could appropriately be granted subject to phased deposit of ₹2,50,000, along with a bail bond, surety, and statutory conditions.

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 appropriate cases.

It also considered the restrictions and obligations contemplated by Section 437(3) of the CrPC, requiring an accused released on bail to appear during trial and comply with prescribed conditions.

The Court applied the principles relevant to bail, including consideration of the seriousness of the allegations, the period of custody, completion of investigation, the likely duration of trial, and parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

Although the allegations concerned a serious cyber-fraud involving approximately ₹20,81,382, the Court noted that the applicant had remained in custody since 2 August 2025, the investigation had been completed, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court further gave weight to the fact that co-accused Rahul had already been granted bail, thereby supporting the applicant’s claim of parity.

Balancing these circumstances against the gravity of the offence, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail in a phased manner and required a monetary deposit as an additional condition.

The Court expressly clarified that it was not making any observation on the merits of the prosecution case.

The applicant, or any person on his behalf, was directed to deposit a total of ₹2,50,000 in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank: ₹1,00,000 before release and the remaining ₹1,50,000 in three monthly instalments of ₹50,000 within three months of release.

The deposit receipts were to be produced before and endorsed by the trial Court, with the deferred amount remaining subject to the final outcome of the case.

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

Breach of the conditions could lead to an application for cancellation of bail before the trial Court.