Continued custody cannot be justified solely to facilitate tracing of absconding co-accused.

The petitioner was accused in FIR No. 47/2025 registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 340, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced to invest approximately ₹2.36 crores in purported IPO trading, after which the money was transferred to thirteen first-layer bank accounts across different States.

One such account, held by the petitioner with Shivalik Small Finance Bank, received ₹24,93,500 between 22 and 24 June 2025, following which the funds were transferred to second-layer accounts.

The petitioner stated that he operated an egg stall in Dehradun and had opened the account for his business.

Malik and Sahil remained untraced despite investigation efforts.

The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 6 October 2025. The chargesheet was filed on 4 December 2025, charges were framed on 2 April 2026, and the trial had commenced with the prosecution’s evidence.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail despite the prosecution’s objection that the application was successive and that the co-accused remained absconding?

Whether the petitioner’s continued detention was necessary when the investigation against him was complete, charges had been framed, the evidence was substantially documentary, and the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate and carried a maximum sentence of seven years?

The Court applied the provisions of Sections 318(4), 319(2), 340, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, under which the petitioner was charged.

It applied the general principles governing grant of regular bail, namely that continued pre-trial detention must be justified by a demonstrated necessity such as preventing absconding, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or obstructing the trial.

The Court also considered the stage of the proceedings, the completion of investigation, the nature of the evidence, the maximum punishment prescribed, and the period already spent in custody.

The Court held that the petitioner’s continued incarceration was not necessary.

Although the prosecution relied on the existence of complaints connected with the petitioner’s bank account and the fact that the co-accused remained untraced, the State’s own case was that the fraud had been devised and operated by the other accused persons.

The petitioner had not retained or personally appropriated the money received in his first-layer account; the funds had moved onward to second-layer accounts.

The investigation concerning the petitioner was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, and the relevant evidence consisted primarily of documentary material such as KYC records, bank statements and transaction trails.

Since charges had already been framed and the trial had commenced, detention could not be justified merely to assist in tracing the absconding co-accused.

The Court further considered that the offences were triable by a Magistrate, carried a maximum sentence of seven years, and the petitioner had already spent almost one year in custody.

His verified socio-economic circumstances also supported a cautious but favourable consideration of bail.

Bail was made subject to conditions including restrictions on leaving Delhi or travelling abroad, disclosure of residential and mobile details, cooperation with the Investigating Officer, non-contact with the complainant and witnesses, non-tampering with evidence, regular appearance before the Trial Court, abstention from criminal activity, and monthly reporting to the concerned SHO.

The Trial Court was requested to expedite the proceedings, and the Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail determination and would not affect the merits of the trial.