Gravity of multi-state economic fraud and criminal antecedents justify bail denial despite prolonged incarceration.

The Petitioner, Deepak Kindo, was the Managing Director of Sambandh Finserve Private Limited (SFPL).

It is alleged that the Petitioner approached Annapurna Financial Private Limited (AFPL) for financial support and secured term loans totaling Rs. 5 crores.

AFPL later discovered that the Petitioner had submitted a forged bank statement showing a closing balance of Rs. 17,51,33,609/-, whereas the actual balance was only Rs. 15,28,829/-.

Subsequent investigations by the EOW revealed a larger scheme involving the misappropriation of approximately Rs. 109 crores from various lenders, including SIDBI and DCB Bank.

The Petitioner was arrested on March 16, 2022, near the Odisha-Chhattisgarh border while allegedly attempting to flee following the issuance of a lookout circular.

The Petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds of long incarceration (nearly four years) and the submission of the charge sheet.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS given his four-year period of custody and the nature of the economic offences alleged.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s failure to disclose seven other criminal cases pending across different states constitutes material suppression affecting his eligibility for bail.

The court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the grant of bail in non-bailable offences.

It applied the multi-factor test from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, which emphasizes the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the danger of the accused absconding.

The court relied on Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, which mandates balancing individual liberty against societal concerns and criminal antecedents.

It further cited Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan regarding the obligation of an accused to disclose all prior criminal involvement in bail applications.

The court applied the principle from State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, asserting that the seriousness of the offence can override the duration of jail time when considering bail.

The court found a clear prima facie case of sophisticated financial fraud involving forgery (Section 467 IPC), which carries a potential life sentence.

It observed that the Petitioner had suppressed his extensive criminal history—comprising seven cases in states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana—in his bail application, characterizing this as "material suppression".

The court rejected the Petitioner's plea that the matter was a mere "inter-corporate contractual dispute," noting the unearthing of a Rs. 109 crore misappropriation through manipulated documents.

Regarding the four-year detention, the court held that "long custody" is not an absolute right to bail, especially where the accused's conduct suggests a flight risk.

The court specifically noted that the Petitioner’s apprehension at a state border after a lookout circular was issued demonstrated a high probability of evading justice if released.

It held that the enormity of the allegation (exceeding Rs. 100 crores), the suppressed criminal antecedents, and the Petitioner's previous attempt to flee outweighed the length of his incarceration.

The court directed the trial court to examine all material witnesses within six months and allowed the Petitioner to renew his bail prayer only after such examinations are concluded.