Criminal antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail where other factors favour release.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 292/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant induced the complainant, Devendra Kumar Verma, and other persons by promising jobs at Mahatma Gandhi University of Horticulture and Forestry and obtained approximately ₹25,00,000 in cash.

The applicant contended that the complainant’s FIR concerned only ₹4,00,000 allegedly paid by him, while the additional amounts allegedly collected from other persons were introduced during investigation. He argued that those alleged transactions were separate, unsupported by documentary or banking evidence, and that the investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had remained in custody since 7 July 2026.

The State opposed bail, relying on the amount involved, the alleged modus operandi, and the applicant’s three criminal antecedents, including similar offences.

One antecedent had already been disposed of and two remained pending.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and the nature of the allegations?

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents, by themselves, justified rejection of bail?

Whether amounts allegedly obtained from persons other than the complainant could be treated as part of the same transaction for determining the applicant’s entitlement to bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail, and considered the allegations under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS.

It relied on Abhimanue v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2037, for the principle that criminal antecedents, by themselves, cannot constitute a ground for denying bail; antecedents are only one factor among several relevant considerations.

The Court also relied on The State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja, AIR 2026 SC 507, referring to the principle that transactions involving different parties, amounts and arrangements may constitute separate and individual transactions rather than one single transaction.

The Court noted that the prosecution case involved alleged cash transactions and that the complainant’s specific allegation concerned payment of ₹4,00,000, while the additional alleged amounts were attributed to other persons who had not independently lodged FIRs or reports.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the Court treated the distinct alleged transactions as relevant to the bail assessment.

It further held that the applicant’s three antecedents could not, in light of Abhimanue, operate as an automatic bar to bail, particularly when one case had been disposed of and the applicant had explained the antecedents.

The completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and custody since 7 July 2026 weighed in favour of release. Balancing these factors against the prosecution’s objections concerning the alleged amount and modus operandi, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS. The order further authorised appropriate proceedings in the event of misuse of bail, non-appearance, or failure to comply with proclamation-related directions.