Grant of Bail for Alleged Digital Forgery Lacking Direct Technical Linkage and Forensic Evidence.

The applicant, a Patwari (Halka No. 1 and 2), was arrested on December 13, 2025, following a complaint by Tehsildar Kaveri Mukherjee.

It was alleged that the applicant’s Bhuiyan Portal ID was used to fraudulently manipulate and tamper with land revenue records of government forest and private lands in favor of co-accused Virendra Gupta and his family.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a lack of technical evidence linking him to the forged digital entries, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering his duration of custody and the nature of the allegations.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive charges were under Sections 318(2)(3) (Cheating), 319 (Cheating by personation), 336(3) (Forgery), 338 (Forgery of valuable security/will), 340(2) (Using forged document), and 61 (Criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The primary principle applied was that bail may be granted considering the nature of the offense, the absence of criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the expected duration of the trial.

The Court evaluated the circumstances of the case, noting that the applicant had been in judicial custody since December 13, 2025.

The Court took cognizance of the fact that the investigation was largely complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

Furthermore, the Court considered the applicant’s defense that the digital entries lacked his digital signature and that no forensic audit or server log analysis had yet established a direct technical link between the applicant’s device and the fraudulent entries.

Given that the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident, the court determined that the risk of absconding was low and that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.

The holding was based on the applicant's duration of stay in jail and the completion of the investigation.

The Court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements, and warned that any misuse of liberty would result in proceedings under Section 209 and 269 of the BNS.