Bail granted where no incriminating material was recovered and allegations relied primarily on hearsay and newspaper reports.

The applicant, Rohit Baliram Chandole, was arrested on January 12, 2026, following an investigation into a fake arms license racket.

The prosecution alleged that a gang in the Gwalior-Chambal region charged individuals approximately ₹3 lakh to create fraudulent licenses.

Though the applicant’s name was not in the initial news report that triggered the probe, co-accused Satishchandra alleged in a memorandum statement that he paid ₹1,00,000 to co-accused Atal Singh to arrange a license for the applicant, and that the applicant's Aadhaar address was forged to show a Bhind residency.

The applicant sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asserting false implication, lack of direct evidence, and that no incriminating materials were recovered from his possession.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the allegations and the duration of custody?

The Court primarily exercised its discretionary power to grant bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

It applied the established legal principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an "anathema to the concept of liberty".

The court also implicitly considered the evidentiary value of newspaper reports and memorandum statements of co-accused, noting that a newspaper report does not constitute substantive evidence.

The Court weighed the prosecution's allegations against the lack of substantive material connecting the applicant to the forgery.

It noted that the allegations were largely "omnibus in nature" and that the prosecution failed to recover any fake licenses, digital devices, or forged documents directly from the applicant.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since January 12, 2026, and determined that because the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, continued incarceration would be unjust.

Furthermore, as a permanent resident of Nashik, Maharashtra, the Court found a low risk of the applicant absconding, provided sufficient conditions were imposed.

It held that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one local solvent surety.

The relief was made subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, a prohibition on committing further offences, and a restriction on leaving India without prior permission.