Grant of Regular Bail for Fraud Allegations Where Co-Accused Secured Pre-Arrest Bail and Charge-Sheet is Filed.

The applicant, Hemant Sahu, filed his first bail application following his arrest on December 23, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 94/2025.

The prosecution alleged misappropriation of paddy during the Kharif year 2024-25 at the Singh Bahal paddy procurement center.

An enquiry by the Tehsildar and Food Inspector revealed that while delivery memos were issued for 875 gunny bags, CCTV footage and registers indicated only 500 bags were actually loaded onto the transport truck.

The applicant, identified as a salesman, was implicated alongside the center in-charge and a miller.

The applicant contended he was a ration distributor for a different PDS shop and not employed at the specific procurement center in question.

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

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail.

The substantive charges were brought under Sections 318(3) (Cheating), 318(4), and 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The Court also applied the principle of parity, noting the grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The Court focused on the necessity of trial presence as per Sections 269 (non-attendance) and 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the BNS.

The Court examined the gravity of the allegations involving the misappropriation of state-procured paddy through falsified documentation.

In its reasoning, the Court balanced the severity of the charge against the applicant’s specific circumstances: he had no prior criminal antecedents and had been in custody since December 23, 2025.

A significant factor in the analysis was that the investigation was largely complete, as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Furthermore, the Court noted that a co-accused, Ashish Agrawal, had already been granted anticipatory bail.

Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was not warranted, provided strict conditions were met to ensure the applicant's participation in the proceedings.

The holding answered the issue in the affirmative, citing the lack of criminal history and the completion of the charge-sheet.

The relief was granted subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend every hearing personally or through counsel (subject to Section 269 BNS), and must be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.