Bail granted where custodial interrogation is unnecessary and prosecution relies primarily on documentary evidence.

The applicant, a loan service provider, was arrested on 26.03.2026 in connection with Crime No. 157/2026.

The prosecution alleges that the applicant was part of a conspiracy involving the execution of a forged sale deed.

Specifically, it is alleged that one Chandan Ben obtained a loan of ₹9,66,652/- from Adhar Housing Finance Limited using a sale deed purportedly executed by Hiralal Barman, who was deceased at the time of execution.

The applicant is accused of assisting in the preparation of forged documents and witnessing an indemnity deed.

The applicant moved this first bail application contending false implication based on mere suspicion and lack of custodial necessity.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of allegations and the progress of the investigation?

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.

Sections 420 (cheating), 419 (impersonation), 467, 468, 471 (forgery), 120B (conspiracy), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

The court adhered to the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing the absence of criminal antecedents and the socio-economic status of the accused as mitigating factors.

The Court observed that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offense, no criminal antecedents were reported against the 34-year-old applicant.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since 26.03.2026 and that no incriminating material had been seized directly from him following his statement.

The Court reasoned that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, especially since the prosecution’s case relies primarily on documentary evidence and account statements.

It found merit in the applicant's contention that he did not witness the sale deed itself and that his complicity is a matter of trial.

The Court concluded there was no immediate risk of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence, given his status and the nature of the pending investigation against absconding co-accused.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount, subject to specific conditions including regular appearance and non-interference with witnesses.