Filing of charge-sheet and parity with co-accused warrant grant of regular bail in embezzlement cases.

The applicant, Neeraj Kumar Sahu, served as the Manager of a petrol pump owned by the complainant, Gagan Jaipuriya.

It was alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with his father and brother, embezzled ₹65,00,000/- between January 26, 2025, and September 23, 2025.

The discrepancy was discovered during a verification of accounts, leading to the registration of Crime No. 100/2025 at Police Station Bamhnidih.

The applicant was arrested on November 6, 2025.

Following the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated due to the complainant's political influence and that co-accused family members had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the completion of the investigation and the principle of parity.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant regular bail.

Sections 316(4) (Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), 316(5) (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, banker, merchant or agent), and 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court further relied on the principle of parity, which suggests that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally regarding the grant of bail.

The Court balanced the gravity of the alleged embezzlement of ₹65,00,000/- against the applicant’s period of detention and the procedural progress of the case.

The Court observed that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet was already filed, reducing the necessity for continued pretrial detention.

Crucially, the Court noted that the applicant’s father had been granted bail by the High Court in M.Cr.C. No. 635/2026, and his brother had been granted bail by the trial court.

Given the applicant had been in custody since November 6, 2025, and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court found that the applicant met the criteria for release, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure his participation in the trial.

The holding is subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear on all trial dates, and must be present personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply with these conditions allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail.