Bail granted to jeweler implicated solely on co-accused's memorandum statement in cheating case.

The applicant, a jeweler by profession, sought regular bail after being arrested on January 4, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 99/2024

The prosecution alleged that on October 14, 2023, two co-accused persons deceived the complainant into handing over a gold locket worth ₹45,000 under the pretext of a housing scheme

The complainant filed the FIR after a delay of 2.5 months

The applicant was implicated based on a memorandum statement of the co-accused, alleging he purchased the stolen article

The applicant contended he had no knowledge that the property was stolen and highlighted his lack of criminal antecedents

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of custody?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail

It also considered Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, relating to cheating and common intention

Procedurally, the Court referenced Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS regarding the appearance of the accused and consequences of non-compliance with bail conditions

The court followed the established principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly when the charge sheet is filed and trial is likely to be protracted

The Court reasoned that the applicant’s connection to the crime was primarily based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, which is a weak form of evidence

It noted that the investigation was effectively concluded as the charge sheet had already been filed

The Court took into account that the applicant had been in custody since January 4, 2026, and had no prior criminal record, suggesting a low risk of recidivism or flight

Furthermore, the Court observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, making continued detention unnecessary

The court deemed it appropriate to grant bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure the applicant's presence during trial proceedings

The holding clarified that the nature of the allegations and the period of detention justified bail

The relief was granted subject to specific conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence during key trial stages (framing of charges and recording of statements), and penalties under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for any breach of liberty