Prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress justify bail despite previous rejection on merits in cheating cases.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) after his first application (MCRC No. 4400/2025) was rejected on merits on 12.06.2025.

The prosecution alleged that on 01.04.2025, the applicant opened a bank account in the complainant’s name using the complainant’s documents without consent, subsequently misusing the ATM and passbook to conduct unauthorized transactions totaling approximately ₹15.14 Lakhs.

The applicant was arrested on 01.04.2025 for offences under Section 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Counsel for the applicant argued that charges were framed on 19.06.2026, but none of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been examined, leading to a prolonged trial while the applicant remained in custody.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail in a second application despite the rejection of the first application on merits, considering the duration of incarceration and the progress of the trial.

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

Section 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), pertaining to the punishment for cheating.

Standard bail jurisprudence regarding the "nature and gravity of allegations," the presence of "criminal antecedents," and the right to a timely trial, as well as Section 269 of the BNS (failure to attend court) and Section 209 of the BNS (absconding to evade process) for bail condition compliance.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case. It noted that while the first bail application was rejected on merits, several new factors favored the applicant: he had no prior criminal record.

The Court observed that although charges were framed on 19.06.2026, the trial’s progress was stagnant, with zero out of twelve witnesses examined to date.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the trial would take a considerable amount of time to conclude. Given that the applicant had already been in judicial custody since 01.04.2025 (over a year at the time of the order), the Court determined that further detention was not warranted.

The holding was subject to strict conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments during witness presence; (ii) mandatory attendance on all trial dates unless excused; and (iii) personal presence during the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.

Default in these conditions grants the trial court liberty to treat it as an abuse of bail.