Grant of bail for financial fraud based on custody duration and filing of charge-sheet.

The applicants filed their first bail application regarding an alleged embezzlement involving the Bandhan Bank, Baikunthpur Branch.

The prosecution case states that in 2020, the Branch Manager and staff embezzled a sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- belonging to 65-70 beneficiaries.

The applicants were implicated primarily based on the memorandum statement of the Branch Manager.

The applicants, who have been in custody since January 14, 2026, argued they were falsely implicated and noted that the charge-sheet has already been filed.

One applicant, Durgesh Ambar, has one prior criminal antecedent.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the period of detention.

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

It further referenced the penal provisions under Sections 420 (Cheating), 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant/banker), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Additionally, the court imposed conditions for bail in accordance with Sections 269 (Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant) and 209 (Failure to appear in person) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations involving financial embezzlement against the procedural status of the case.

It observed that the investigation reached a significant milestone with the filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court noted the duration of the applicants' incarceration since January 14, 2026, and reasoned that since the trial is likely to consume substantial time, further pretrial detention was not warranted.

Despite the State’s objection regarding Durgesh Ambar’s criminal antecedent, the Court determined that the facts and circumstances justified the exercise of discretion in favor of granting bail, provided stringent conditions were met to ensure the applicants' presence during the trial.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicants must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must remain present for all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and Section 351 BNSS statements), and must comply with all procedural requirements of the trial court.

Failure to comply allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed per Sections 269 or 209 of the BNS.