Grant of bail based on parity and prior bail orders despite multiple pending criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Diwakar Avsariya, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

He was arrested on July 24, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 170/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, induced the complainant, Deepak Kumar Dansena, and others to invest approximately ₹6,07,89,000/- in share trading under the false promise of doubling the investment within one year, subsequently misappropriating the funds.

The applicant had six prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature, but had been granted bail in all those instances.

A charge-sheet had already been filed in the present case.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the allegations, his period of detention, and the fact that a charge-sheet has been filed.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive charges were under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 3(5) (common intention), and 111 (organized crime) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court considered the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail under the established procedures of the Court.

The Court applied Section 269 of the BNS regarding non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant and Section 209 of the BNS regarding fraudulent claims in a Court of Justice as potential consequences for violating bail conditions.

The Court balanced the gravity of the offence—involving the dishonest inducement of large sums of money—against the procedural status and the applicant's history.

It noted that the applicant had been in custody since July 24, 2025, and that the investigation had concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet, meaning his further detention was not required for investigation.

Despite the presence of six criminal antecedents, the Court found it significant that the applicant had been granted bail in all those cases by the same High Court.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the co-accused, Sampat Kumar Sahu, had already been granted anticipatory bail, supporting a lean towards the applicant's release on the basis of parity and the likely duration of the trial.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions, including: not seeking adjournments during witness testimony [para. 8(i)], appearing on all trial dates [para. 8(ii)], and appearing personally for charge framing and Section 351 BNSS statements [para. 8(iv)]. Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS or Section 84 of the BNSS.