Grant of regular bail on grounds of parity and prolonged custody despite allegations of financial fraud.

The applicant filed a first bail application after being arrested on 20.11.2024 in connection with Crime No. 283/2024 at P.S. Dharamjaigarh.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, acting as a Director of "Flora Max Company," conspired with others to induce the complainant and several other women to invest Rs. 30,000/- each under a fraudulent employment scheme.

A total of Rs. 49,50,000/- was allegedly collected and subsequently misappropriated when the company refused to refund the investors.

The applicant contended that the investors had been receiving regular profits, that the complaint was misled by third parties, and that he had been in custody for over a year while the trial, involving 115 witnesses, remained pending.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under the principle of parity and on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial detention.

2. Whether the existence of criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations under the IPC outweigh the applicant’s right to liberty during the pendency of the trial.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

Legal principles regarding "parity" were applied, referencing the prior release of similarly situated co-accused Raju Singh, Gudiya Devi Rajput, and Manju Chauhan.

The court also considered the procedural requirements for appearance and conduct under Sections 209 (punishment for non-appearance), 269 (attendance of persons confined), and 351 (evidence in presence of accused) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding).

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since November 2024, exceeding one year of detention.

It noted that the prosecution had cited 115 witnesses, indicating that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Although the State opposed bail citing four criminal antecedents, the Court found the applicant’s case to be identical to those of the co-accused who had already been granted bail on the grounds of prolonged detention.

Considering that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the evidence was documented, the Court determined that further incarceration was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's cooperation with the trial.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions that he shall not seek unnecessary adjournments, must remain present on every date of the trial, and must appear for specific trial milestones such as the framing of charges and recording of statements.

Failure to comply would permit the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty.