Distinguishing Role of Conspirator from Operational Agent for Granting Bail in Fraudulent SIM Procurement cases.

The complainant, Karim Mohammad, alleged that a POS agent at "Dwarika Mobile Shop" used his documents to fraudulently issue an Airtel SIM card, which was subsequently used for illegal activities.

FIR No. 645/2025 was registered against the agent for cheating and IT offenses.

The applicant, Dipanshu Sahu, was implicated based on a memorandum statement of co-accused Dwarika Sahu.

Although the applicant has been in jail since 25.02.2025 for a separate matter, he was formally arrested in the present case on 09.07.2025.

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing he was not named in the FIR and that investigation is complete with the filing of the charge-sheet.

The State opposed bail citing four criminal antecedents from 2025 and the previous rejection of the co-accused’s bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his role is distinguishable from the primary accused.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It assessed the nature of the offenses under Sections 318(4) (Cheating) and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Identity theft).

The court also applied the principle of parity and role differentiation, distinguishing between a "primary and operational" perpetrator and an alleged "conniver".

The Court observed that the primary allegation of misusing identity documents and issuing the fraudulent SIM card rested with the co-accused Dwarika Sahu, the POS agent.

The applicant’s role was found to be distinguishable because his implication arose from a co-accused's statement while he was already in custody for another matter.

Although the applicant has four criminal antecedents, the Court noted that he had secured bail in all those cases and that the charge-sheet in the present matter has been filed, making further detention unnecessary.

The court concluded that while the co-accused's bail was rejected due to his direct operational role, the applicant’s circumstances and the conclusion of the investigation warranted his release.

The applicant is to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions: he must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend trial proceedings, and must comply with Sections 269, 84, and 351 of the BNSS regarding appearance and the consequences of default.

The Court specifically held that the applicant's role was secondary compared to the primary accused whose bail was rejected.