Completed investigation, substantial custody, and parity with bailed co-accused justify regular bail.

The complainant alleged that, between 7 November and 6 December 2025, he was induced through WhatsApp and a mobile application to transfer ₹1,49,50,000 to various bank accounts for purported online share trading; further payment demands led him to suspect fraud.

The applicant was arrested in connection with the resulting crime registered under Sections 318(4), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

He submitted that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, he had been in custody since 21 February 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and that co-accused had been granted bail.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the bail granted to co-accused, along with the applicant’s custody, antecedents and the status of the investigation and trial, supported his release.

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the procedural basis for the High Court to consider an application for regular bail.

The Court assessed bail by considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents and period in custody, the likely time for trial, and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not separately analyse the elements of the charged offences.

The Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations against the completed investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, his custody since 21 February 2026, and the likelihood that trial would take time.

It also considered the bail orders granted to co-accused.

On those combined circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

It directed that the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was subject to conditions against influencing persons acquainted with the case, conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and appearance on every date fixed by the trial Court.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case on its merits.