Grant of bail where transaction is predominantly civil and co-accused have been granted parity.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on December 17, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 137/2018.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with other accused persons, executed a sale deed for approximately 4.944 hectares of land in favor of complainant Rekha Mishra in 2007, but subsequently executed fresh sale deeds for the same land in favor of one Sarabjit Singh in 2015, thereby committing fraud and forgery.

The applicant contended that the dispute is civil in nature, there was an inordinate delay in filing the FIR (registered in 2018 for a 2015 incident), and that co-accused Laxman Kushwah and Shankar Singh Kushwah had already been granted bail.

The State opposed bail, noting that while co-accused were released due to advanced age, the applicant committed double forgery against both the complainant and a second purchaser.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the nature of the allegations and the period of custody.

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

Substantively, the allegations involved Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court applied the settled judicial principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty and that bail is the rule when a trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.

The Court observed that the charge-sheet has already been filed, meaning custodial interrogation is no longer required.

It took note of the "overall facts and circumstances," specifically highlighting the period of custody already undergone by the applicant since December 2025.

The Court reasoned that since the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future, continued detention would be unjust.

While the State argued that the co-accused were granted bail only on the grounds of age, the Court found the applicant's situation—where the allegations were largely based on documentary interpretation of land transactions from several years prior—sufficiently balanced to merit liberty, provided stringent conditions were met to prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant complying with several conditions, including cooperating with the trial, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without permission.

The Court clarified that any breach of these conditions or the commission of a further offence would result in the automatic cancellation of bail.