Grant of bail for cheating where charge-sheet is filed despite pending criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Jai Prakash Baghel, sought regular bail after being arrested on August 3, 2025, for allegedly defrauding a complainant.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant met the complainant on Facebook, misrepresented himself as a government civil engineer, and proposed marriage.

Under the guise of family problems and a car accident, he allegedly induced the complainant to transfer ₹8,25,000 to him.

He subsequently returned only ₹90,000, refused to pay the balance of ₹7,35,000, and revealed he was already married with a child.

The applicant argued his innocence, noting that the charge-sheet had been filed and trial would be lengthy, despite having two pending criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It also considered the substantive offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), pertaining to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Procedural compliance was mandated through Section 269 of the BNS (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 of the BNS (fraudulent claim to property).

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations and the applicant's criminal history against the procedural status of the case.

While the State opposed bail citing two pending criminal antecedents, the court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The court emphasized that the applicant had been in custody since August 3, 2025, and reasoned that since the trial was likely to take a considerable amount of time to conclude, continued pre-trial detention was not warranted provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's participation in the trial.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant not seeking unnecessary adjournments, appearing personally for key trial stages (framing of charges and statement recording under Section 351 BNSS), and complying with all court dates under penalty of bail cancellation.

The court ordered the trial court to initiate proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS if the applicant misuses the liberty of bail or fails to appear after a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS.