Regular bail denied where prima facie coordinated financial fraud and multiple criminal antecedents were established.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 82/2024 registered at Police Station Jaijaipur, District Sakti, for offences under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, who was facing financial difficulties in operating his cold-drink shop, was approached by the applicant and co-accused Harish Yadav with an offer to arrange a low-interest loan.

They allegedly facilitated the opening of current and savings bank accounts in the complainant’s name, retained the account documents and ATM cards, and thereafter operated the accounts without his knowledge.

Transactions totalling ₹4,21,22,801.62 were allegedly conducted through the accounts.

The applicant submitted that he had been falsely implicated, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that no money had been credited to or received by him.

He specifically contended that the bank account into which the alleged defrauded amount was deposited, and the mobile number linked to that account, were neither owned nor controlled by him and that no nexus was established between him and the transactions.

He also relied on his custody since 10 April 2026 and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged conspiracy, the substantial amount involved, and the applicant’s four criminal antecedents, three of which were pending.

The Court considered the applicant’s plea for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The underlying accusations were under Sections 420, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning cheating, criminal conspiracy and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

In deciding bail, the Court assessed the seriousness and magnitude of the alleged offence, the material appearing from the case diary, the applicant’s alleged role in a planned and concerted fraud, and his criminal antecedents.

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

The Court treated the alleged operation of the complainant’s bank accounts and the transactions totalling ₹4,21,22,801.62 as indicative of a coordinated and deliberate fraud carried out by the applicant with the co-accused.

Although the applicant relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 10 April 2026, and the alleged absence of any direct transfer of funds to his account, the Court found the prosecution allegations and case materials sufficient, at the bail stage, to indicate his participation in a criminal conspiracy and planned fraud.

The Court also considered his four criminal antecedents—one case ending in acquittal and three remaining pending—as an adverse circumstance.

On the cumulative assessment of the gravity of the allegations, the amount involved, the alleged concerted conduct and the antecedents, the Court held that the applicant had not made out a fit case for regular bail.

The Court nevertheless stated that the trial court was at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude it expeditiously.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.