Parity and lack of criminal antecedents justify grant of regular bail post-charge sheet.

The applicant, Rajat Verma, was arrested on October 3, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 420/2025 at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, acting in collusion with co-accused persons, committed fraud and forgery by dishonestly inducing individuals with false promises of securing government jobs.

Specifically, they were accused of extorting ₹2,00,000 from the complainant for a post as a Food Inspector.

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing that there were no money transactions in his account, no significant seizures were made from his possession, and a co-accused, Mahesh Heraou, had already been granted bail.

It was further noted that the charge sheet had been filed and the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the period of detention and the principle of parity.

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

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court also referenced procedural compliance under Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (punishment for non-appearance), 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), and 351 (evidence to be taken in presence of accused) of the BNSS regarding bail conditions.

While the prosecution opposed bail due to the nature of the job fraud, the Court observed that the charge sheet had already been filed, meaning the investigation was substantially complete.

Crucially, the Court applied the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused, Mahesh Heraou, had been granted bail in M.Cr.C. No. 1522/2026.

The Court took into account that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in detention since October 3, 2025.

Given that the trial was expected to consume a significant amount of time, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally or through counsel as required under Section 269 of the BNSS, and must be present in person for specific trial milestones, including the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail.