Grant of regular bail on grounds of parity and prolonged trial for cheating involving job fraud.

The applicant, Bhishma Narayan Sharma, filed his first bail application following his arrest on 02.09.2024.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused (Swayam Sharma and others) operated a consultancy firm, "Sai Business Consultancy," and fraudulently induced several victims by promising government jobs in the Indian Railways.

While the total alleged fraud amounted to Rs. 29,50,000/-, the specific allegation against the applicant involved receiving Rs. 85,000/- from one victim, Kewal Narayan Sahu.

A charge-sheet was filed following the registration of Crime No. 352/2024 under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The applicant sought bail citing the prolonged trial, lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that other similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the grounds of parity and the status of the trial.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of regular bail (equivalent to Section 439 of the CrPC).

It relied on the Principle of Parity, whereby an accused may be entitled to bail if similarly situated co-accused have already been granted such relief.

Furthermore, the Court considered the procedural requirements of Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNSS and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to ensure the applicant’s presence during trial and to prevent the abuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court observed that despite the gravity of the allegations involving a job-placement scam, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court noted that out of 45 prosecution witnesses, only 12 had been examined, suggesting the trial would consume significant time.

Crucially, the Court found that the applicant’s case was identical to that of co-accused Dhaneshwari Verma and Shyam Sundar Rao, both of whom had previously been granted bail by the same Court.

As the State could not dispute the identity of the applicant's role relative to the released co-accused or the absence of the applicant's prior criminal record, the Court determined that the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity and the duration of his pretrial detention since September 2024.

The holding was based on the principle of parity and the slow progress of the trial.

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 Section 269 of the BNS; and (iii) personal appearance during specific trial milestones such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.