Prolonged incarceration and filing of charge-sheet justify grant of regular bail in cheating offences.

The applicant, Razaul Mustafa, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 611/2025 for allegedly cheating the complainant, Nutan Tamboli.

The complainant alleged that the applicant and co-accused induced him to invest Rs. 18,03,300 in a medicinal herb business between March 2023 and March 2024, promising high returns that were never paid.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to a personal dispute involving a small loan of Rs. 7,000, which had already been repaid, and that he was roped in solely because of his brother’s alleged involvement.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since September 25, 2025, and the charge-sheet has been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offenses under Section 420/34 of the IPC.

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

Section 420 (cheating) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

procedural mandates under the BNSS, including Section 269 (proceedings for absence), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 (failure to appear), and Section 351 (recording of the accused's statement).

The Court balanced the gravity of the alleged economic offense and breach of trust against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the applicant has been incarcerated for approximately six months since September 2025 and that the investigation is effectively complete with the submission of the charge-sheet.

The Court further considered that the applicant has only one prior criminal antecedent and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Finding no immediate risk of the applicant absconding or tampering with evidence, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was not warranted, provided strict conditions were imposed to secure his presence during trial.

The holding was conditioned on the applicant’s mandatory attendance on all trial dates, a prohibition against seeking adjournments during witness evidence, and strict compliance with trial court directions.

The Court specifically directed that any default in these conditions would allow the trial court to treat the instance as an abuse of liberty and proceed in accordance with law.