Delay in FIR and full restitution of disputed amount justify grant of regular bail.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on February 23, 2026, for offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, and 471 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that in 2022, the applicant induced the complainant to pay ₹2,00,000 as an advance for land by falsely representing himself as an authorized power of attorney holder.

It was further alleged that the applicant lacked valid title and subsequently sold the land to third parties.

The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged after a delay of over three years, that the entire amount had since been repaid to the complainant, and that an amicable settlement had been reached.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicant's criminal antecedents and the fraudulent nature of the transaction.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the settlement of the dispute and the delay in FIR registration.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

It also considered the substantive offenses under Sections 420 (Cheating), 467, 468, 469, and 471 (Forgery and use of forged documents) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Additionally, the court referenced procedural compliance requirements under Sections 84 (Proclamation), 209 (Failure to appear), 269 (Non-attendance), and 351 (Statement of accused) of the BNSS.

The Court observed that while the allegations involved cheating in a land transaction, the prosecution’s case was weakened by an unexplained delay of approximately three years and two months in lodging the FIR.

The Court emphasized that the disputed amount of ₹2,00,000 had been fully repaid to the complainant’s wife via cash and UPI transactions, and the complainant had filed an affidavit acknowledging the settlement.

Despite the State’s objection regarding the applicant's criminal history and the seriousness of the fraud, the Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since February 23, 2026, the charge-sheet was not yet filed, and the trial would reasonably take time to conclude.

The Court concluded that the settlement and the delay in reporting justified the grant of bail.

Any breach of conditions or failure to appear after proclamation would lead to the immediate cancellation of bail and proceedings under Section 209 of the BNSS.