Multiple similar criminal antecedents and misuse of earlier bail justify denial of regular bail.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 304/2025 registered at Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir-Champa, for alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunications Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with his wife Neha Barman and co-accused Rakesh Kumar Pandey, obtained Point of Sale codes linked to different mobile numbers and used them to activate 27 SIM cards without the customers’ knowledge or consent, by using their Aadhaar documents, identity documents, and photographs, with the intention of securing unlawful gain.

The applicant had been in custody since 12 November 2025, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State opposed bail on the grounds that the co-accused’s bail application had been rejected and that the applicant had four pending criminal antecedents of a similar nature.

This was the applicant’s first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, and the filing of the charge-sheet.

Whether the applicant’s four similar criminal antecedents, the alleged misuse of previously granted bail, and the rejection of the co-accused’s bail application justified denial of bail.

The Court considered the applicant’s prayer for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

The alleged offences were under Section 420 of the IPC concerning cheating, Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act concerning identity theft, and Section 42(3)(e) of the Telecommunications Act.

In assessing bail, the Court applied the settled principle that the nature and gravity of the offence, the material collected during investigation, the possibility of repetition of criminal conduct, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents are relevant considerations.

The Court also relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , (2022) 8 SCC 559, for the proposition that previous criminal antecedents and misuse of bail may justify cancellation or refusal of bail.

The Court found that the allegations involved a coordinated scheme in which the applicant and co-accused allegedly used POS codes and customers’ identity documents to activate 27 SIM cards without consent, indicating prima facie involvement in fraudulent and identity-related offences.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had remained in custody since 12 November 2025, the Court gave greater weight to the gravity and organised nature of the alleged conduct, the rejection of the co-accused’s bail application, and the applicant’s four pending criminal cases of a similar nature.

The absence of any plausible explanation for those antecedents led the Court to regard the applicant as a habitual offender who had misused bail previously.

Applying the principle stated in Deepak Yadav , the Court concluded that the applicant did not deserve the discretionary relief of regular bail.

The Court held that the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged activation of 27 SIM cards through unauthorised use of identity documents, the applicant’s four similar criminal antecedents, the alleged misuse of earlier bail, and the rejection of the co-accused’s bail application made the case unsuitable for grant of bail.

The trial court was permitted to proceed with the trial and conclude it expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.