Grant of regular bail for business transaction dispute involving dishonoured cheque and filed charge sheet.

The applicant sought first regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on December 12, 2025

The prosecution alleged that the applicant purchased articles worth ₹89,400 from a complainant and issued a cheque that was subsequently dishonored due to "insufficient funds".

While the specific transaction involved ₹89,400, the prosecution alleged a broader pattern of fraud involving 16 businessmen and a total sum of ₹21,31,000.

The applicant contended that the dispute was a civil business transaction and that the complainant should have pursued a remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act rather than criminal proceedings for cheating.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations, the filing of the charge sheet, and the duration of pretrial detention?

The Court applied Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, pertaining to the punishment for cheating.

It also considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Furthermore, the court implicitly relied on judicial principles governing bail, specifically the relevance of the completion of investigation (filing of charge sheet), the nature of the offense (business transaction vs. criminal fraud), and the period of incarceration.

The Court weighed the facts of the business transaction against the state's opposition.

It noted that the applicant had been in custody since December 12, 2025, and that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge sheet had already been filed in the competent court.

Regarding criminal history, the Court observed that while the applicant had two prior criminal antecedents, both had resulted in acquittals, thereby diminishing their weight as a bar to bail.

The Court reasoned that since the trial would take a considerable amount of time and the primary allegation stemmed from a dishonored cheque in a business context, further detention was not warranted.

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail given the period of detention and the filing of the charge sheet.

The release was made subject to strict conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates under penalty of Section 269 of BNS; and (iii) personal appearance for specific trial milestones like framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.