Charge-sheet filing and detention period justify regular bail under BNSS regardless of prior criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 531/2025 for allegedly issuing approximately 142 unauthorized SIM cards by misusing identity documents of various persons to meet sales targets.

The prosecution originated from a Cyber Cell report dated 05.12.2025, which initially targeted a co-accused (Ishwar), a SIM seller.

The applicant was implicated solely through the memorandum statement of the co-accused.

The alleged incidents occurred between July and August 2024, but the FIR was lodged after a delay of one year and four months.

The applicant, who has two criminal antecedents, has been in custody since 25.01.2026, and the charge-sheet has been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given that his implication is based on a co-accused's memorandum statement and the investigation is complete.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the discretionary power to grant regular bail.

The substantive offences were considered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, relating to cheating, and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

The court invoked conditions for bail maintenance under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS to ensure the applicant's presence during trial.

The Court examined the competing interests of the gravity of the offence and the procedural status of the trial. While the State argued that the applicant was actively involved in a serious breach of statutory provisions and identity misuse, the Court noted that the applicant's name was absent from the FIR and the initial Cyber Cell report.

The Court observed that the applicant was implicated primarily through a memorandum statement, the evidentiary value of which is subject to trial.

Despite the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the Court emphasized that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had undergone significant detention since January 2026, and the trial was expected to be protracted.

Consequently, the Court determined that further pretrial detention was not warranted.

The holding is subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during evidence, must remain present for all trial dates (personally or through counsel), and must appear in person for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the trial court treating the default as an abuse of liberty.