Regular bail denied where multiple similar criminal antecedents indicate the applicant is a habitual offender.

The applicant, Nikunj Gupta, filed three first applications for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Since all applications concerned the same applicant, they were decided by a common order.

MCRC No. 3581 of 2026 arose from Crime No. 327/2025, registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant prepared a false agreement for sale concerning land belonging to other persons and dishonestly obtained approximately ₹78,97,000 from the complainant and her family between 2018 and 2022.

MCRC No. 7639 of 2026 arose from Crime No. 129/2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 111(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegation was that the applicant and co-accused cheated the complainant through a jointly operated “mule account” and transferred approximately ₹14,00,000 through various transactions.

MCRC No. 7749 of 2026 arose from Crime No. 579/2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused induced several persons to obtain loans, took approximately half of the disbursed loan amounts on the representation that the money would be invested in their company, and transferred ₹2,61,44,456 through joint accounts.

The applicant asserted that he was innocent, that co-accused Vishnu Prajapati was the principal offender, that the disputes were civil in nature, and that investigation had been completed with charge-sheets filed. He also relied on his period of custody, the absence of recovery from him, and the fact that the offences were triable by a Magistrate.

The State and the objector opposed bail, relying on the alleged transfer of more than ₹2 crores and the applicant’s five criminal antecedents involving similar offences.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in the three criminal cases after completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheets?

Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement in substantial financial fraud and his five similar criminal antecedents justified denial of bail on the ground that he appeared to be a habitual offender?

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

It considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the alleged financial loss, the applicant’s role as disclosed in the prosecution case, and the existence of criminal antecedents.

The offences in the three cases were alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 318(4), 317(4), 319(2), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS.

The Court treated repeated antecedents involving similar offences as a relevant circumstance in determining whether the applicant appeared to be a habitual offender and whether bail ought to be granted.

No specific judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

Although the applicant relied on completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheets, custody, absence of recovery, and the asserted civil nature of some disputes, the Court focused on the seriousness and pattern of the allegations.

The prosecution alleged that more than ₹2 crores had been transferred through accounts connected with the applicant and co-accused and that the applicant was involved in multiple cheating and financial-fraud cases.

The Court specifically noted five criminal antecedents of a similar nature, including the offences forming the subject matter of the present applications.

On that cumulative assessment, the Court found that the applicant appeared to be a habitual offender and concluded that the circumstances did not warrant exercise of the power to grant bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Court nevertheless directed or expected the trial courts to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trials in all three cases as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.