Parity and filing of charge-sheet justify grant of regular bail in cheating cases under BNS.

The applicant, Uttara Kumar Sahu, sought regular bail after being arrested on January 5, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 553/2025

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his father (a co-accused) induced the complainant to invest Rs. 67,17,000/- by promising to double the amount through land dealings and share market activities

While the complainant received a partial return of Rs. 15,00,000/-, the accused allegedly refused to return the remaining balance

Consequently, an FIR was registered for cheating and common intention under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The applicant moved the High Court for bail following the filing of the charge-sheet

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the principle of parity with a co-accused and the completion of the investigation

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail

The substantive charges were under Section 318(4) (cheating) and Section 3(5) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

The Court also relied on the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence, noting that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted relief

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—involving a substantial financial loss of over Rs. 52 lakhs—against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the applicant had been in detention since January 5, 2026, and that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had been filed

A critical factor in the Court's reasoning was the principle of parity; the Court observed that a similarly situated co-accused, Hirendra Kumar Sahu, had been granted bail on March 13, 2026, in MCRC No. 2393 of 2026

Furthermore, the Court took into account that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and that the trial was expected to take considerable time to conclude

The Court held that despite the allegations of inducement and dishonest failure to return funds, the filing of the charge-sheet and the grant of bail to a co-accused justified the applicant's release

The release was conditioned upon the execution of a personal bond with two sureties and strict requirements to attend all trial proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments

The trial court was authorized to treat any breach of these conditions or deliberate absence as an abuse of the liberty of bail