FIR delay justifies bail in job-scams while permitting prosecution of bribe-giving complainants.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on January 9, 2026, in connection with an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged the applicant cheated the complainant of ₹13,35,027 by promising to secure a job for the complainant's son in SECL.

The applicant allegedly admitted in a memorandum statement that the funds were used to purchase land in his wife's name.

The defense argued the matter was a civil dispute regarding land transactions and highlighted a three-year delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged offense occurred in 2023 while the FIR was registered in 2026.

The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has no prior criminal history.

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

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code regarding cheating.

Section 269 (failure to appear before court), Section 84 (proclamation for absconding persons), Section 209 (punishment for non-appearance), and Section 351 (recording of the accused's statement) of the BNSS.

The court weighed the gravity of the cheating allegations against the procedural circumstances. It placed significant emphasis on the three-year delay in lodging the FIR, noting the discrepancy between the 2023 occurrence and the 2026 registration.

The court observed that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had no previous criminal record, continued detention was not warranted, especially as the trial's conclusion would take time.

The court scrutinized the complainant's conduct, noting that paying money to secure a job through illegal channels constitutes bribery, which may warrant independent prosecution against the complainant.

The bail was made subject to conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, a mandate for personal appearance at critical trial stages (framing of charges and recording of statements), and a warning that default would result in proceedings under Section 209 of the BNSS.

The court specifically directed the prosecuting agency to consider initiating prosecution against the complainant for attempting to provide a bribe for employment.