Offence Gravity Alone Cannot Justify Pre-Trial Detention Post-Investigation Where Custodial Interrogation Is No Longer Required

The applicant, Dinesh Prasad Bijalwan, sought bail in connection with FIR No. 102 of 2025 involving alleged fraud related to rehabilitation plots in Raiwala

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Dinesh Padiyar coordinated six fraudulent agreements to sell for Rs. 38,25,000 by using forged documents and impersonating original allottees

While the applicant was not named in the FIR, investigation suggested he participated in the conspiracy and received part of the illicit proceeds

The applicant was arrested on January 19, 2026, and a charge-sheet has since been filed

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail given that he was not named in the FIR and is neither an executant nor an attesting witness to the forged documents?

2. Whether the completion of investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet mitigate the necessity for further custodial interrogation despite the gravity of the charges?

The court applied the general principles governing the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, alongside Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code

The court relied on the principle that seriousness of accusation, while relevant, cannot be the sole ground for continued detention once the investigation is complete and the accused's presence at trial can be secured through conditions

It further emphasized that the court should not perform a meticulous examination of evidence or record a finding of guilt at the bail stage

The court reasoned that while the allegations involve a "well-planned conspiracy" and significant financial loss, several factors weighted in favor of the applicant.

Specifically, the court noted that the applicant was not named in the primary FIR and did not sign the forged sale agreements as a party or witness.

Since the investigation is concluded and the charge-sheet filed, the court found no further necessity for custodial interrogation, especially as the evidence is primarily documentary and already in state custody.

The court determined that there was no evidence suggesting the applicant would abscond or prejudice the trial.

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail based on the period of incarceration since January 2026, the completion of the investigation, and his absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.