Prolonged trial delay and minimal witness examination warrant bail despite prior absconding.

The complainant, Ashok Kumar Sahu, alleged that in 2014 he was induced by an agent of "Divyani Properties" to invest Rs. 9,00,000/- under the promise of doubling his investment.

Despite bond papers being issued, the applicant and other directors refused to return the money upon demand, leading to the registration of Crime No. 319/2016.

The applicant absconded and was eventually arrested on September 28, 2025.

A first bail application (MCRC No. 9009 of 2025) was rejected on December 9, 2025.

The applicant filed this second bail application on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the slow pace of the trial and the number of remaining witnesses.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

It considered the penal provisions under Sections 420 (cheating), 467, 468, 471 (forgery), and 406/34 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC, as well as Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Inami Chit-Fund & Prize Money Circulation (Prohibition) Act and Section 10 of the Protection of Depositors Interest Act.

The Court also assessed the relevance of criminal antecedents and the accused’s conduct regarding his prior absconding.

The Court noted that while the applicant had previously absconded, necessitating the rejection of his first bail application, several factors now favored his release.

Specifically, the Court observed that although the charge-sheet had been filed, the prosecution intended to examine 100 witnesses, of which only three had been recorded thus far.

This disparity indicated that the trial's conclusion would take a significant amount of time.

Furthermore, the applicant’s single criminal antecedent from 2015 was not deemed an absolute bar, as he had already been granted bail in that matter.

By weighing the right to a timely trial against the allegations of financial fraud, the Court determined that further detention was not warranted.

The holding was predicated on the likelihood of a protracted trial.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties.

The Court imposed several conditions, including a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments [para. 8(i)], a requirement for personal appearance at critical trial stages under Section 351 of the BNSS [para. 8(iv)], and a warning that non-compliance or absconding would trigger proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.