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

The applicant was arrested on 2 September 2025 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 subjected to a “digital arrest” cyber-fraud by persons impersonating police and CBI officials, and was induced to transfer approximately ₹20,81,382 through RTGS transactions into accounts provided by the accused

The applicant’s first bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn on 3 December 2025

In the present second bail application, he relied on the absence of material beyond disclosure statements, the grant of bail to co-accused Rahul, 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

1. Whether the applicant, in custody since 2 September 2025 and facing a completed investigation and filed charge-sheet, was entitled to bail in the second application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023/Section 439 of the CrPC

2. Whether bail could appropriately be granted on the ground of parity with co-accused Rahul and subject to phased monetary deposit and other conditions

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail in cases involving non-bailable offences

It also referred to the conditions under Section 437(3) of the CrPC, requiring the accused to remain available during trial and refrain from conduct affecting the administration of justice

The Court considered relevant bail principles, including the applicant’s period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the likely duration of trial, the gravity of the allegations, and parity with a similarly placed co-accused

No independent precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 2 September 2025, the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed, indicating that further custodial detention was not shown to be necessary

Although the alleged cyber-fraud involved a substantial amount and was serious in nature, the Court noted that co-accused Rahul had already been granted bail, supporting the applicant’s claim of parity

The Court also took note of the applicant’s submission that the material against him consisted primarily of disclosure memoranda and that the trial would take considerable time

Balancing these factors against the seriousness of the offence, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail in a phased manner, requiring a total deposit of ₹2,50,000 while expressly refraining from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case

The applicant, or any person on his behalf, was directed to deposit ₹1,00,000 in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank before release and to produce the receipt or certificate before the trial Court

The remaining ₹1,50,000 was to be deposited in three monthly instalments of ₹50,000 each within three months from release; the amount would remain subject to the final outcome of the trial

The applicant was directed to furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with one local surety for the like amount, to appear regularly before the trial Court, and to comply with Section 437(3) CrPC

In case of violation of the conditions, an application for cancellation of bail could be moved before the trial Court.