Bail may be granted considering prolonged detention, filed charge sheet, and slow progress of trial.

The applicant, Surtha Das, sought regular bail in connection with Crime No. 221/2017 involving allegations of a multi-level marketing scam by Micro Finance Public Limited Company

The complainant alleged her deceased husband deposited ₹9,70,000 in various schemes, but the company shut down in 2014 without returning the funds

The applicant was appointed as a director in 2013 following the death of a previous director

While the CBI filed a charge sheet against several directors (excluding the applicant), the local police registered the present case

The applicant’s first bail application was dismissed on August 7, 2025, because he had remained absconding for nearly eight years before his arrest on May 8, 2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his period of detention and the progress of the trial

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

Substantive charges were registered under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating and criminal breach of trust

Furthermore, the court considered Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors, Interest Act, 2005, which regulate fraudulent financial schemes

Procedural compliance during bail was governed by Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (non-appearance), 269 (attendance of accused), and 351 (recording of statement) of the BNSS

The Court weighed the applicant’s prior eight-year period of absconding against the current trial status and duration of custody

It noted that although the first bail application was rejected due to his initial evasion of arrest, the applicant has now been in jail since May 8, 2025

The Court observed that the charge sheet has been filed and only one of the seventeen prosecution witnesses has been examined thus far, indicating that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon

Under these circumstances, the Court determined that continued detention was no longer necessary, provided stringent conditions—including local family sureties and mandatory attendance—were imposed to mitigate the risk of the applicant absconding again

The holding is conditioned upon the applicant not seeking adjournments during witness presence and appearing personally for critical trial stages under threat of proceedings for abuse of liberty

The Court further directed the trial court to endeavor to conclude the trial within six months