Prolonged custody and likely trial delay justify bail after filing of the charge-sheet.

The applicants—Om Kodvale, Shivam Pandey, and Mohammad Gufaran Hussain—were arrested in connection with Crime No. 0083/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur, for offences under Sections 61(2), 112(2), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 337, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that an illegal call centre was being operated from Pithaliya Complex, Raipur, under the name “Rockland Business Solution Pvt. Ltd.”, where US-based citizens were allegedly deceived through false loan assurances, fake cheques, forged arrest warrants, and threats of “digital arrest”.

The applicants were allegedly found present and working at the premises.

They had remained in custody since 25 March 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and although 20 witnesses had been cited, none had been examined by the time of the bail hearing.

This was their first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the serious allegations concerning an organised cyber-fraud and illegal call-centre operation.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ custody since 25 March 2026, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial justified release on bail when none of the 20 prosecution witnesses had yet been examined.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the number of prosecution witnesses, and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court also imposed conditions under the bail jurisdiction requiring attendance, non-interference with the trial, personal presence at material stages, and consequences for misuse of bail.

No judicial precedent was cited in the order.

Although the State opposed bail on the ground that the allegations involved a serious and organised cyber-fraud operation targeting US-based victims, the Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the applicants had been in custody since 25 March 2026.

The prosecution had cited 20 witnesses, but none had been examined, indicating that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing the gravity of the allegations against the prolonged pre-trial custody and the delayed progress of the trial, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 BNSS in favour of the applicants.

The risk of non-appearance or misuse of liberty was addressed through stringent bail conditions, including mandatory attendance and personal appearance at specified stages of the proceedings.

Om Kodvale, Shivam Pandey, and Mohammad Gufaran Hussain were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions concerning non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses are present, attendance before the trial court, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS, and consequences for absence or misuse of bail.

The trial court was further directed not to delay the trial against the applicants merely because any absconding accused had not been arrested or produced.