Bail granted where accused’s role was limited to introducing parties without direct involvement in financial transactions.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, concerning Crime No. 06/2025.

The prosecution alleged that a retired bank officer was defrauded of ₹76,00,000/- by imposters posing as CBI officers.

The applicant was implicated based on a memorandum statement of co-accused Ajay Verma, which suggested the applicant introduced Verma to others to facilitate the use of a corporate bank account as a "mule account" for transacting defrauded money.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since December 14, 2025; his first bail application was withdrawn in January 2026.

Investigation is complete and a final report has been submitted.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering his alleged limited role of "introducing" co-accused persons and the absence of direct financial transactions into his own account.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is warranted given the completion of the investigation and his lack of criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 (Cheating) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act (Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource).

The court also invoked the principle of ensuring the presence of the accused during trial via Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the CrPC).

The Court observed that the applicant’s involvement was primarily based on self-incriminatory statements of co-accused made in police custody, which are generally inadmissible.

It noted that no defrauded amount was transacted into the applicant’s personal account and his role was limited to that of a facilitator/introducer.

The Court weighed the "gravity of the offence" against the fact that the applicant has no prior criminal record, is 38 years old with family responsibilities, and has a stable profession as a mechanic.

The Court reasoned that since the final report (charge sheet) has already been filed, there is no immediate necessity for custodial interrogation, and there is no evidence suggesting a likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

The applicant is ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the same amount subject to stringent conditions, including: (i) mandatory appearance at every hearing; (ii) a prohibition on committing further offences; (iii) a prohibition on influencing witnesses; and (iv) a specific direction to mark his presence at P.S. Station Road, Ratlam, on the first Saturday of every month until the conclusion of the trial.