Facts
The applicants, Sanjay @ Sanju and Someshwar, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 302/2025 registered at Police Station Satwas, District Dewas, for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Source reference: para. 2The prosecution alleged that, on 24 June 2025, the complainant—a retired government school principal—was deceived by persons impersonating police and CBI officials, who threatened him with involvement in a money-laundering case and subjected him to a purported “digital arrest.” As a result, he transferred approximately ₹20,81,382 through RTGS transactions on 25 and 26 June 2025 into accounts allegedly provided by the accused.
Source reference: para. 4, p. 1The applicants had been in custody since 30 July 2025.
Source reference: para. 2Their first bail application was dismissed on merits on 14 October 2025, with liberty to renew the prayer after framing of charges.
Source reference: para. 3Charges were subsequently framed by the JMFC, Kannod, District Dewas, on 18 November 2025.
Source reference: para. 4The applicants relied on the release of co-accused persons on bail and claimed parity with co-accused Rahul, Sunil @ Sagar and Harsh Prajapat.
Source reference: paras. 4–6Issues
Whether the applicants’ second bail application was maintainable and deserved reconsideration after charges had been framed, particularly in view of the liberty granted while dismissing the first bail application?
Source reference: paras. 3–4Whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted bail?
Source reference: para. 6Whether bail should be granted subject to a phased deposit of ₹2,50,000 by each applicant, in addition to a personal bond and surety?
Source reference: paras. 7–10Law Applied
The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.
Source reference: para. 2It also referred to the offences charged under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the BNS, read with Section 61(2) thereof, and Section 66-D of the IT Act, which concern cheating, personation, forgery-related conduct, use of forged electronic records and cheating by personation through communication devices or computer resources.
Source reference: paras. 2, 4The Court further directed compliance with the conditions under Section 480 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 437(3) of the CrPC, concerning regular attendance, non-interference with the administration of justice and compliance with other bail conditions.
Source reference: para. 10The Court applied the principle that a subsequent bail application may be considered upon a material change in circumstances, including the framing of charges, and also considered parity with similarly placed co-accused who had been granted bail.
Source reference: paras. 3, 6Reasoning
The Court treated the framing of charges after dismissal of the first bail application as the relevant change in circumstance permitting reconsideration of the applicants’ bail request.
Source reference: paras. 3–4Although the allegations involved a substantial cyber-fraud amount and the applicants had allegedly received or retained part of the proceeds, the Court considered their claim of parity with co-accused Rahul, Sunil @ Sagar and Harsh Prajapat, who had been granted bail in separate orders.
Source reference: para. 6On that basis, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail in a phased manner, balancing the applicants’ liberty against the financial nature of the alleged offence and the interests of the proceedings.
Source reference: paras. 7–8The Court imposed deposits in fixed deposits with a nationalised bank, required production of the receipts before the trial court, and made the later deposits subject to the final outcome of the trial.
Source reference: paras. 8–9Holding
The High Court allowed the second bail application and directed that each applicant be released on bail upon: (i) depositing ₹1,00,000 in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank before release and producing the receipt or certificate before the trial court; (ii) depositing the remaining ₹1,50,000 in three monthly instalments of ₹50,000 each within three months from release, also in a fixed deposit and subject to the final decision of the trial court; and (iii) furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one separate surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The applicants were required to remain present during trial and comply with the conditions under Section 480 of the BNSS/Section 437(3) of the CrPC.
Source reference: para. 10The trial court was authorised to consider any application for cancellation of bail in the event of breach of the order’s conditions.
Source reference: para. 11The matter was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Source reference: para. 12Acts & Sections Cited
11 provisions across 4 statutes referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20236
Information Technology Act, 20001
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732
Original Court PDF
Sanjay @ Sanju @ VampirevsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
