Delayed Trial Progress and Long Incarceration Warrant Grant of Second Bail Application in Cheating Case

The applicant, Swatantra Kaushal, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 219/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant cheated the complainant and his friend of a total of Rs. 19,00,000/- by falsely promising employment.

The applicant was arrested on March 19, 2025, for offenses under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A previous bail application (MCRC No. 4525/2025) was rejected on merits on July 10, 2025, with a direction for an expeditious trial.

Despite charges being framed on August 8, 2025, none of the eight prosecution witnesses had been examined as of the date of this hearing.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in a second application despite a previous rejection on merits, considering the duration of incarceration and the lack of progress in the trial.

The Court considered Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 regarding the grant of regular bail.

It applied the principle that prolonged incarceration (since March 19, 2025) without significant trial progress—specifically where no witnesses have been examined post-framing of charges—can serve as a ground for bail.

The Court also noted the absence of previous criminal antecedents as a favorable factor for the applicant.

Procedural safeguards under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding).

Section 209 of the BNS were cited as conditions for the continued liberty of the applicant.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—cheating for a substantial sum of money—against the applicant’s fundamental right to liberty during a delayed trial.

While the first bail application was rejected on merits, the Court observed a change in circumstances: the applicant had remained in jail for nearly a year (since March 19, 2025), and although charges were framed in August 2025, the prosecution failed to examine any of its eight witnesses.

Given that the applicant has no prior criminal history and the trial court’s failure to conclude the trial expeditiously as previously directed, the High Court determined that further detention was not warranted.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant not seeking adjournments during witness presence and attending all trial dates personally or through counsel.

The Court further directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within six months.