Grant of regular bail in financial fraud cases subject to conditional monetary deposit under protest.

The applicant, Amit Garg, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding Crime No. 304/2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with Mahesh Koshta (Sales Manager at Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd.), used forged salary slips to secure personal loans for Smt. Mangla Devi, Vinod Kumar Raikwar, and Sachin Karosia.

The applicant was arrested on March 11, 2026, and remained in judicial custody while the investigation continued regarding co-accused persons.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based on suspicion, was not the direct beneficiary, and offered to deposit Rs. 10,00,000 under protest to show bona fides.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the documentary nature of the evidence and the duration of his custody.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Substantive offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically Section 420 (Cheating), Section 467 (Forgery of valuable security), Section 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and Section 120-B (Criminal conspiracy).

Section 346 of the BNSS (formerly Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

The court observed that the prosecution’s case relies significantly on documentary evidence and a money trail, much of which has already been seized.

It noted that the investigation regarding the applicant is nearly complete and his further custodial interrogation is not required.

The court evaluated the applicant's socio-economic status and determined there was no immediate risk of him fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

While the State opposed bail citing one criminal antecedent, the court accepted the applicant’s rebuttal that he had been acquitted in those previous matters.

The court reasoned that since the trial would take time to conclude and the complicity of the applicant is a matter of trial evidence, continued incarceration was not compellingly necessary.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the same amount subject to specific conditions, including a mandatory deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 in installments: Rs. 4,00,000 immediately and the remaining Rs. 6,00,000 in three monthly installments of Rs. 2,00,000 each.