Bail granted where prolonged investigation and 40-day custody made indefinite detention unjustified.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1041/2026, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(c), 66(D) and 72(a) of the Information Technology Act.

The FIR alleged that the informant’s biometric, fingerprint and iris data, collected ostensibly for enrolment in a Skill India programme and attendance verification, was liable to be misused for fraudulent attendance.

The petitioner claimed that he was merely a contractual worker under co-accused Ravishankar Mishra and had worked for only a few days.

The prosecution alleged that he facilitated the offence by providing technical assistance, transmitting biometric data and preparing PDFs containing iris-scan images for use with a modified iris-scanning device.

Statements of co-accused persons and bank records allegedly indicated his involvement and receipt of ₹20,000.

At the time of consideration, the petitioner had spent approximately 40 days in custody, while investigation into the financial trail, digital communications, devices, biometric data and inter-State connections remained pending.

Whether the petitioner should be released on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, notwithstanding the incriminating material alleged against him in the ongoing investigation.

Whether the petitioner’s continued detention was justified when he had already been interrogated in police custody, had spent about 40 days in custody, and the investigation was likely to take considerable time.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail to a person accused of an offence and to impose appropriate conditions.

The Court also considered the offences alleged under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, read with Sections 66(c), 66(D) and 72(a) of the Information Technology Act.

The governing bail principle applied was that an accused should not be detained indefinitely during investigation, particularly where custodial interrogation has substantially occurred, the investigation is expected to be prolonged, and detention is not shown to be necessary for its completion.

The Court acknowledged that incriminating material had surfaced against the petitioner, principally through statements of co-accused persons, and that the prosecution alleged his technical and financial involvement in the fraudulent use of biometric data.

However, the investigating officer had already collected substantial evidence, and the petitioner had been thoroughly interrogated in police custody.

Although further investigation concerning digital records, biometric data, devices, communications and the financial trail remained, the Court found that such investigation was likely to take a considerable period and that the petitioner could not be kept in custody indefinitely merely until its completion.

Balancing the alleged role against the duration of custody and the requirement of continued cooperation with the investigation, the Court considered bail appropriate.

The principal condition was that the petitioner must continue to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required or summoned.

The bail application was accordingly disposed of.