Facts
The complainant, Anand Shukla, alleged that the applicant, acting as the Director of "Soul Art of Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.," induced him to invest in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) by demanding 25% of a Rs. 50,00,000 sum
Source reference: para. 2Between January and February 2025, the complainant transferred a total of Rs. 10,20,000 to the applicant’s company and personal accounts via RTGS and UPI
Source reference: para. 2It is alleged that the applicant issued forged tax documents and fake bond papers to the complainant
Source reference: para. 2Following an investigation into FIR No. 280/2025, the applicant was arrested on September 12, 2025, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed
Source reference: para. 2, 3The applicant argued that the matter was a civil business dispute and cited medical needs following a 2011 orthopedic surgery
Source reference: para. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the filing of the charge-sheet and the duration of his incarceration
Source reference: para. 1, 6Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant regular bail
Source reference: para. 1Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 338 (Forgery), 336(3) (Forgery of valuable security), 340(2) (Using forged document as genuine), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Source reference: para. 1, 7Procedural compliance under Sections 84 (Proclamation), 209 (Failure to appear), 269 (Non-attendance), and 351 (Record of evidence) of the BNSS/BNS framework
Source reference: para. 7Reasoning
The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the procedural status of the case. It noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been submitted to the competent trial court
Source reference: para. 4, 6While the State opposed bail on the grounds of a single criminal antecedent, the Court found that the applicant had been in custody since September 12, 2025. Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time to conclude, the Court reasoned that continued pretrial detention was not warranted under the circumstances
Source reference: para. 4, 6Holding
The High Court granted the bail application, ordering the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties
The bail is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear personally during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS, and must comply with all court dates or face proceedings for abuse of liberty under the BNS. The trial court was directed to be notified immediately for compliance
Source reference: para. 7, 8Original Court PDF
ASHISH KUMAR RATHvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in