Facts
The applicants (father and son) were arrested on 21.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 466/2025 for allegedly defrauding 32 individuals of ₹33,50,000/- under the pretext of securing jobs in the Indian Railways Warehouse
Source reference: para. 2The FIR was lodged by a social worker on 18.11.2025
Source reference: para. 2Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against three accused, while two others were exonerated
Source reference: para. 2The applicants moved the High Court for regular bail, contending they were falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and that a co-accused had already been granted bail
Source reference: para. 3Issues
Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the period of detention and the filing of the charge-sheet
Source reference: para. 1, 6Law Applied
The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail
Source reference: para. 1The court also referenced the underlying penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 420 (Cheating), 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), and 34 (Common Intention)
Source reference: para. 1Procedural compliance was mandated under Sections 84 (Proclamation), 209 (Failure to appear), 269 (Attendance of accused), and 351 (Examination of accused) of the BNSS
Source reference: para. 7Reasoning
The Court observed that the applicants had been in custody since 21.11.2025 and that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed
Source reference: para. 6It noted that the applicants have no prior criminal history and that the trial’s conclusion would likely be protracted
Source reference: para. 6Applying the principle of parity, the Court noted that a co-accused, Hemant Kumar Sahu, had been granted bail in January 2026
Source reference: para. 6The Court reasoned that continued detention would serve no purpose other than pre-trial punishment, especially as there was no immediate risk of tampering with evidence following the filing of the charge-sheet
Source reference: para. 3, 6Holding
The applicants met the criteria for bail given the nature of the offense and the duration of their incarceration
The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicants upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each, conditioned upon strict adherence to trial proceedings, including undertakings not to seek unnecessary adjournments and mandatory presence during key trial stages
Source reference: para. 7Original Court PDF
BISESHWAR MARKANDEY @ BESESAR MARKANDEYvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in