Criminal antecedents do not preclude bail where charge-sheet is filed and further custody is unwarranted.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station Balod for offences under Sections 318(4), 111(1), 316(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, acting in conspiracy with co-accused persons, collected villagers’ Aadhaar Cards, PAN Cards, Kisan Kitab Cards and photographs on the pretext of arranging wire fencing, fish farming, KCC, car and tractor loans under NABARD schemes, thereby allegedly causing financial loss of approximately Rs.35,87,000/-.

The applicant denied the allegations, contending that the villagers voluntarily availed the loan facilities, the loan amounts were directly credited into their bank accounts, and his role was limited to that of a commission agent.

He also relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 20 March 2026, the expected delay in trial and the grant of bail to co-accused Rakesh Kumar.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant’s four criminal antecedents, asserting that parity with Rakesh Kumar was unavailable because that co-accused had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS despite the allegations of conspiracy, cheating and an alleged financial loss of Rs.35,87,000/-?

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents disentitled him from claiming bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had already been released on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the need for further custodial detention, the material concerning the alleged financial transactions, the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the principle of parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

The Court also imposed conditions requiring attendance during trial, cooperation when witnesses are present, personal appearance at material stages and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation that the applicant and his co-accused had obtained villagers’ documents by promising various NABARD-related loans and benefits, allegedly causing a loss of Rs.35,87,000/-.

However, the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had remained in custody since 20 March 2026, reducing the justification for continued custodial detention.

The Court further noted that the loan amounts were allegedly disbursed directly into the beneficiaries’ bank accounts, which supported the applicant’s contention that he did not have direct access to or control over those amounts.

Although the applicant had four antecedents, the Court accepted his explanation that he had been granted bail in two cases, acquitted in one and faced trial in only one case.

The prior grant of bail to co-accused Rakesh Kumar was treated as a relevant circumstance, though not as conclusive parity because that co-accused had no criminal antecedents.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court concluded that further detention was not warranted.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings arising from any proclamation, 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.