Parity, completed investigation, and likely trial delay warranted regular bail to the co-purchaser.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 541/2026, registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 322, 336(3), 338, 339, 340 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Amar Singh impersonated the deceased recorded owner of land and executed a sale deed in favour of the applicant and co-accused Payal Patel; the land was later sold to third parties and the accused allegedly shared the proceeds.

The applicant, arrested on 6 August 2026, claimed to be a bona fide purchaser unaware of the alleged impersonation. He also relied on the bail granted to Payal Patel, the co-purchaser, and submitted that he had no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial would take time.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the bail granted to the co-purchaser and alleged impostor, together with the applicant’s lack of antecedents, custody, and completion of investigation, supported release on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the circumstances relevant to release, including the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the status of the investigation and charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likely duration of trial, and the bail status of co-accused.

The Court noted that the alleged impersonation and subsequent sale of the land formed the prosecution case, but the co-purchaser Payal Patel and alleged impostor Amar Singh had already been released on bail.

It further relied on the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 6 August 2026, and the likelihood that the trial would take time. On those circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring availability for police interrogation when required, non-interference with persons acquainted with the case, and conduct not prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s independent assessment on the merits.