Completion of investigation and detention period justify regular bail in cheating cases despite existing criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Shubham Nirmalkar, was arrested on November 24, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 128/2025 for allegedly fraudulently obtaining the complainant's biometric details

On June 11, 2024, the applicant, while selling SIM cards, issued a SIM to the complainant for Rs. 10 after collecting his Aadhaar card, live photographs, and biometric thumb impression

The complainant later discovered that a second SIM card had been issued in his name without his knowledge and sold to another individual

Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail after his arrest

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the nature of the allegations, the filing of the charge sheet, and the duration of his detention

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

Substantively, the case involved Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC concerning cheating by personation and cheating

For the enforcement of bail conditions, the court relied on Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance

Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons

Section 209 of the BNS regarding non-appearance in response to a proclamation

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case and the applicant's rights.

It observed that the applicant had been in custody since November 24, 2025, and that the investigation had culminated in the filing of a charge sheet

While the State opposed bail by highlighting the applicant’s two criminal antecedents, the court considered the nature of the allegations and the likelihood that the trial would be prolonged

The court reasoned that since the charge sheet was already filed, continued pre-trial detention was not necessary, provided that the applicant’s appearance at trial was secured through stringent conditions, such as undertakings against seeking adjournments and mandatory presence during the framing of charges and recording of statements

The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail based on the period of detention and the fact that the charge sheet had been filed

The relief was granted subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear personally at all key stages of the trial (including framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and faces proceedings under the BNS and BNSS should he violate the terms of his liberty