Regular bail denied for dishonest procurement of funds through false promises of providing government employment.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on November 12, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 92/2025.

It is alleged that between 2020 and 2025, the applicant induced the complainant to pay approximately Rs. 72,00,000/- by falsely promising to secure government police jobs for her children.

The complainant reportedly raised this sum through land sales and loans.

When the return of the money was demanded, the applicant allegedly threatened the complainant’s family.

The applicant contended that the amount was exaggerated and that he had only received Rs. 17–18 lakhs.

Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for various offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology (IT) Act.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the conduct of the parties.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The substantive charges were brought under Sections 318(2) (Cheating), 319(2) (Cheating by personation), 336(3) (Forgery), 340 (Using forged document), and 238(C) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act (punishment for identity theft and personation using computer resources).

The court applied the principle that the nature and gravity of the offense, the material in the case diary, and the conduct of the accused are primary considerations in bail adjudications.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense, noting the substantial sum of money involved (allegedly Rs. 72,00,000/-) and the deceptive nature of the promise regarding government employment.

Although the applicant’s counsel argued that the amount was inflated and that the applicant had been in custody since November 2025, the Court emphasized the applicant's conduct.

Specifically, the Court observed that the applicant had accepted money to facilitate employment through "illegal modes".

Despite the charge-sheet having been filed, the Court determined that the nature of the fraud and the threats allegedly issued by the applicant outweighed the arguments for release.

The bail application of Santosh Kumar Patel was rejected.

The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial court for compliance.