Bail granted where accused is unnamed in FIR and implicated solely via co-accused’s memorandum statement.

The complainant, Gopal Prasad Dewangan, alleged that he and two others were induced to invest Rs. 40,82,000/- in share trading by several accused persons (Ramnarayan Sahu and others) on the promise of doubling the investment within two years.

The funds were transferred via online modes (PhonePe, NEFT) and cash.

Consequently, Crime No. 378/2025 was registered at Police Station Kasdol.

The applicant, Diwakar Avsariya, was arrested on 13.07.2025.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing that he was not named in the FIR, no specific allegations of participation existed against him, and his implication was based solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused.

The State opposed the bail, noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the evidence and the duration of his incarceration.

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

The substantive offences charged were under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 316(5) (criminal breach of trust), 318(3), 3(5) (joint liability), and 111 (organized crime) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court also referenced procedural safeguards and penalties for non-compliance with bail conditions under Sections 269 (non-appearance) and 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the BNS, as well as Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of statements.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offence against the evidentiary standard presented by the prosecution. It observed an "inordinate delay" in lodging the FIR, which prima facie suggested the complaint might be an afterthought.

The Court highlighted that the applicant’s name was absent from the FIR and that his involvement was predicated entirely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which lacks substantive weight for continued detention at this stage.

While the applicant had four criminal antecedents under the BNS, the Court noted he had already secured bail in three of those cases.

Considering that the applicant had been in custody since July 2025 and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties. The grant of bail was made subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend all trial dates personally or through counsel, and must appear for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.