Bail granted where the accused’s sole link was SIM registration and no proceeds were attributed to him.

The complainant alleged that co-accused persons promised government employment in return for money, including ₹2,00,000 transferred through PhonePe and ₹1,00,000 paid in cash, but did not provide an appointment or return the money

The applicant was not named in the FIR and was arrested on the allegation that a SIM card connected with the offence was registered in his name.

He claimed that he had purchased the SIM in 2021 for a co-accused, who used it, and denied knowledge of its alleged misuse or receiving any money.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 238, 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail where his alleged connection to the offence was the registration of a SIM card in his name.

2. Whether the applicant’s period of custody and the anticipated time for conclusion of trial supported his release on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail.

In deciding this application, the Court considered the applicant’s alleged role and connection to the offence, whether he was alleged to have received or obtained the money, the period of custody, and the likely duration of the trial.

The order cites no precedents or further legal test.

The Court noted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and that the allegation against him rested on the SIM card being registered in his name.

It also found no allegation that he had received or obtained money on the pretext of providing government employment.

Given these circumstances, together with his custody since 30 August 2026 and the likelihood that the trial would take time, the Court concluded that bail was warranted.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him to be available for police interrogation when required, not to influence or threaten persons acquainted with the case, and not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s decision on the merits.