Grant of bail for investment fraud where charge-sheet is filed and trial is delayed.

The applicant, Shubham Kumar Gupta, filed a First Bail Application seeking regular bail following his arrest on September 19, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced to invest ₹23,30,000 in "Nisha Business Consultancy" and "Unique Investment Solution" under the promise of 20% monthly returns from share market trading.

The companies subsequently shut down, leading to financial loss and allegations of cheating.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Smriti Nagar for offenses related to financial fraud and protection of depositors.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated and noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

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

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

The substantive charges were framed under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 338 (forgery), 336(2), 340(2), and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005.

The court also referenced Section 269 of the BNS (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 of the BNS, and Section 351 of the BNSS (accused's statement) regarding bail condition compliance.

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

While the State counsel opposed bail citing three criminal antecedents (including an undisclosed NDPS matter), the court noted that the investigation was largely complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The court reasoned that since the applicant had been in custody since September 19, 2025, and the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time to conclude, further pre-trial detention was not warranted.

To mitigate risks associated with the applicant's release, the court imposed strict conditions requiring his personal presence during key trial milestones and prohibited seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear at every hearing (unless excused), and must be present for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of his statement.

Failure to comply would authorize the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Section 269 or 209 of the BNS.