Grant of bail for financial fraud where charge-sheet is filed and no criminal antecedents exist.

The applicant sought regular bail following her arrest in connection with Crime No. 489/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Smt. Lata Kesharwani, was induced by one Ravi Shankar Gandharva and his family into an investment scheme promising doubled returns and vehicles through a purported connection with Maruti Suzuki.

The complainant allegedly transferred approximately ₹29,63,500/- to the bank accounts of the main accused and his family members, of which only a portion was returned.

The applicant was arrested on 28.11.2025 and remained in custody while the investigation concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering her period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It further considered the penal provisions under Sections 318(4) (cheating) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court adhered to established judicial principles that bail may be granted based on the nature of allegations, the status of the investigation (filing of charge-sheet), the absence of prior criminal records, and the expected duration of the trial.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations involving financial fraud amounting to over ₹29 lakhs against the personal circumstances of the applicant.

The Court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and had been in custody since November 2025.

Crucially, the Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed, indicating that the custodial interrogation was no longer required for investigation purposes.

Given that the trial was likely to take a significant amount of time to conclude, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant’s presence during trial proceedings.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: (i) no seeking of adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS/BNSS regarding attendance and potential penalties for non-appearance.

The trial court was directed to treat any breach of these conditions as an abuse of liberty.