Parity and extended incarceration justify bail in cheating cases triable by a Magistrate.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 146/2025 for allegedly defrauding approximately 156 women of roughly Rs. 53,60,000/-.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused operated a fraudulent small-scale industry, luring victims with employment promises and inducing them to secure bank loans of Rs. 40,000/- each for "investment," which the accused then misappropriated.

The applicant was arrested on April 11, 2025, and remained in judicial custody for over 11 months.

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the trial commenced with 36 out of 46 witnesses yet to be examined.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail after a co-accused, Poonam Nayak, was granted bail in a related matter.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on the principle of parity and the duration of judicial custody.

The court considered the penal provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 318(4) (cheating), Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and Section 3(5) (common intention).

Procedurally, the court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The court also referenced the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, noting that a co-accused with similar allegations had already been released.

Furthermore, the court invoked conditions under Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the BNSS to ensure the applicant’s appearance and prevent the abuse of liberty.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations against the necessity of continued pre-trial detention.

It noted that the applicant, a woman, had been in custody for over 11 months for offences triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class rather than those punishable by death or life imprisonment.

The Court observed that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, meaning the evidence was largely documentary and already secured, thereby minimizing the risk of tampering.

Crucially, the Court applied the principle of parity, noting that the co-accused, Poonam Nayak, had been granted bail by the same Court in October 2025.

The Court distinguished the applicant’s role from another co-accused, Tarun Shrivas, and determined that given the substantial number of remaining witnesses (36), the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

The Court ordered the applicant's release on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions: she must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at every hearing (unless excused), and must comply with requirements for framing charges and recording statements.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.