Bail granted where the chargesheet was filed, custody was prolonged, and trial conclusion was unlikely soon.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 58/2026 registered at Police Station Patna, District Koriya, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant promised the complainant’s wife a government job at Nagar Panchayat, Patna, received ₹2,00,000 through PhonePe and cash, and sent a forged appointment order through WhatsApp.

It was further alleged that he collected money from several persons and thereby committed fraud involving approximately ₹4,49,000.

The applicant denied the allegations, contending that only ₹25,000 had been received as a loan for digging a borewell and that the complaint was fabricated after he failed to repay the amount.

He also asserted that he had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 9 June 2026.

The State opposed bail, referring to one criminal antecedent and stating that the charge-sheet had been filed.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations, his period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and his criminal antecedent.

2. If bail is granted, what conditions should govern the applicant’s release and presence during trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The Court considered the general bail principles reflected in the circumstances identified in its order, including the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, and the nature of the applicant’s criminal antecedent.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 238 of the BNS.

Bail was made subject to statutory and judicial conditions intended to secure the applicant’s attendance, prevent adjournment-related delay, and address any misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the immediate need for custodial detention for investigation.

It also considered that the applicant had remained in custody since 9 June 2026 and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the State pointed out one unexplained criminal antecedent, the Court considered the overall circumstances sufficient to conclude that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The Court therefore balanced the allegations of cheating and use of forged documents against the applicant’s period of detention, the completion of investigation, and the anticipated duration of trial, while imposing conditions to ensure his continued participation in the proceedings.

The applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with consequences prescribed in case of absence or misuse of bail liberty.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.