Bail granted where financial fraud prosecution relies on documentary trail and incarceration is not required.

The applicant, Babbar @ Asfar Khan, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on December 1, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 245/2025 involving the embezzlement of funds from "Shubh Motors".

It is alleged that co-accused individuals transferred Rs. 7,78,000/- into the applicant’s account, which the applicant claims was done at the behest of his sister (Muskan) and brother-in-law without his knowledge of the illegal source.

The applicant contended that the money was subsequently remitted back to Shubh Motors and that the investigation is complete with the final report submitted.

The applicant has been in custody since September 2025 (as per para 1) or December 2025 (as per para 8).

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering his period of incarceration, the nature of the evidence, and the lack of objection from the objector.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

General principles of bail jurisprudence, including the assessment of the "likelihood of recidivism," the "possibility of fleeing from justice," and the potential for "tampering with evidence" or "influencing witnesses".

Consideration of the relevance of "jail incarceration causing hardship" versus the necessity of continued detention based on the "gravity of the offence".

The court examined the prosecution's case, which is primarily founded on a "money trail and statements of bank accounts," characterizing it as documentary evidence.

Justice Kalgaonkar noted that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offence and the applicant's two criminal antecedents, the applicant’s counsel clarified those matters were pending and not similar in nature.

Significantly, the Senior Counsel for the objector stated they had "no objection" to the grant of bail.

The court reasoned that since the trial would take time to conclude and the applicant has dependent family responsibilities and no record of previous convictions, there was no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.

The court found no evidence that the applicant would flee or tamper with evidence given his socio-economic status.

The holding is contingent upon five conditions, including appearing at all hearings, not committing further offences, and not tampering with evidence.

The order (likely due to a clerical error) names the applicant as "Shubham Vanshkar" in the operative section, it grants bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.