Delay in FIR and Parity with Co-Accused Justify Grant of Bail in Alleged Property Fraud Case

The applicant, Ahmad Ali, was arrested on 10.03.2026 following an FIR (Crime No. 161/2026) registered at Police Station Ambikapur.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and a co-accused (Mohammad Mujamil Hashmi) fraudulently executed a sale deed for land belonging to Jamila Khatoon by fabricating a false Rin Pustika (loan record book) to bypass the requirement of Collector's permission.

The complainant alleged discrepancies between the original revenue records and the document used for the sale.

The applicant sought regular bail, noting that the FIR was lodged five years after the alleged incident, the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, and the charge-sheet was yet to be filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the delay in FIR and parity with the co-accused.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive offences were considered under Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (Using a forged document as genuine) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court also referenced Section 269 and Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding penalties for non-attendance and breach of proclamation, and Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of statements.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—specifically the fraudulent sale of land via forged documents—against several mitigating procedural factors.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in detention since March 2026 and that the investigation was ongoing as the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

Crucially, the Court noted a significant five-year delay between the alleged incident (2021) and the lodging of the FIR (2026).

Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of parity, noting that the co-accused, Mohammad Mujamil Hashmi, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same Court in April 2026. Given that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of Ahmad Ali... upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at trial, non-seeking of adjournments, and compliance with Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS in the event of default.