Grant of parity-based regular bail in multi-victim financial fraud where investigation is complete.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on December 12, 2025, in connection with an alleged investment fraud.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, acting as a Director of MCX Company, induced the complainant to invest approximately Rs. 39.50 lakh by promising monthly profits of 3-7% and issuing fraudulent bond papers.

It is further alleged that the total fraud involving the complainant and his associates amounted to Rs. 49.50 lakh.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, the charge sheet had been filed, and cited parity with a co-accused who was previously granted bail.

The State opposed the application, noting the applicant's residency in Odisha and one pending criminal antecedent.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the duration of his incarceration.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

The court also considered Sections 420 (Cheating), 467, 468, 471 (Forgery), 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant/banker), and 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Additionally, the court applied the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, as established by the prior release of co-accused Prakash Chandra Padhi in M.Cr.C. No. 9718 of 2025.

The court evaluated the gravity of the offenses against the applicant’s period of detention since December 2025 and the filing of the charge sheet, which suggested that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Although the State highlighted a criminal antecedent, the court prioritized the fact that the co-accused, Prakash Chandra Padhi, had already been granted bail by the same court on January 5, 2026.

The court reasoned that since the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future and parity was applicable, the applicant's continued incarceration was not warranted.

The holding directed the release of Santosh Kumar Acharya upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend all trial proceedings (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements), and must comply with the procedural requirements of Sections 209 and 351 of the BNSS.

Non-compliance would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail.