Bail granted to employee-driver lacking involvement in management or client dealings of fraudulent investment company.

The complainant, Ramchandra Vastrakar, alleged that between 23.07.2024 and 19.10.2024, he was cheated of Rs. 8,06,640/- by a company named "VIP Trade," which promised monthly returns of 10–12%.

FIR No. 0307/2025 was registered for cheating and criminal breach of trust.

The applicant, Kailash Choudhary, was arrested and sought regular bail, contending he was merely a driver for the principal accused, Lokesh Choudhary, and had no involvement in the company’s financial dealings or client management.

The applicant had been previously granted bail by the Rajasthan High Court in a separate FIR and produced in the present case via a production warrant on 12.03.2026.

The charge-sheet in the present matter has already been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given his alleged role as a subordinate employee and the status of the investigation.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

The substantive offences were considered under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 316(2) (criminal breach of trust), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court referenced procedural mandates for trial attendance and consequences of default under Section 269 of the BNS, Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations, and Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of the accused's statement.

The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the applicant’s specific involvement in the "VIP Trade" entity, observing that the prosecution’s case primarily identified Lokesh Choudhary as the operator responsible for investments and client interactions.

The Court found merit in the argument that the applicant was merely an employee/driver with no active role in the fraudulent collection or investment of funds.

Taking into account that the charge-sheet had been filed, the investigation was complete, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents were explained, the Court determined that the applicant met the threshold for bail.

The Court emphasized that while the allegations were serious, the lack of a primary role in the management of the firm mitigated the necessity for continued pretrial detention.

The holding was subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear on all trial dates, and must be personally present for the framing of charges and the recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS; any violation allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail.