Bail granted where a delayed FIR followed the accused’s prior complaint and filing of the charge-sheet.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 125/2025 registered at Police Station Balco, District Korba, for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that, on 4 July 2020, the applicant obtained ₹5,50,000 from the complainant by promising to secure government employment for the complainant’s daughter, but failed to fulfil that assurance.

The applicant denied the allegation and relied on a separate transaction concerning an agreement to sell dated 19 October 2021, under which he had allegedly paid ₹5,00,000 to the complainant for land at Village Rishda. He contended that, after discovering disputes concerning the complainant’s power of attorney and title to the land, he demanded return of his money and submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Korba, on 18 February 2025. The applicant argued that the complainant’s report dated 5 March 2025 was a counterblast to his prior complaint.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the cheating allegation, the amount involved, the applicant’s alleged criminal antecedents, and the contention that the defence relating to the land transaction and power of attorney required consideration at trial. The applicant had been in custody since 9 August 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail. The alleged substantive offence was Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property.

In determining bail, the Court considered relevant factors including the apparent delay in lodging the complaint, the existence of a prior complaint by the accused, the circumstances surrounding the parties’ monetary dispute, the accused’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of trial.

The Court also imposed conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and consequences of misuse of bail under the relevant provisions of the BNSS and BNS.

The Court noted that the alleged transaction forming the basis of the prosecution occurred in 2020, whereas the written report was lodged only on 5 March 2025, constituting a considerable delay.

It further considered that, shortly before the report, the applicant had lodged a complaint on 18 February 2025 regarding non-return of money paid under the agreement to sell and had questioned the complainant’s power of attorney and title to the land. The temporal sequence of the complaints and the underlying monetary dispute raised circumstances requiring consideration at the bail stage, without finally determining the merits of the prosecution or the defence.

Although the State relied on the seriousness of the allegation and the applicant’s antecedents, the Court noted that one of the two antecedent cases had been quashed by the Supreme Court. In addition, the applicant had been in custody since 9 August 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take time. Balancing these considerations, the Court held that continued detention was not justified and that the applicant deserved the benefit of bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS, and to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail. A certified copy of the order was directed to be provided to the trial court for compliance.