Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing, considering prolonged custody, likely trial delay, settlement, and co-accused parity.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 259/2025 registered at Police Station Frejarpur Parpa, District Bastar, for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused Kundan Sharma conspired to cheat the victims through false representations and fabricated records, involving an alleged financial transaction of Rs. 1,99,700/-.

The applicant claimed that the entire amount had been refunded to the complainants pursuant to an amicable settlement and that the co-accused had already been granted bail on similar allegations.

The State opposed bail, asserting the applicant’s direct involvement and pointing out that he had two criminal antecedents; the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The applicant had remained in custody since 30 March 2026.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the allegations, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and likely delay in conclusion of the trial?

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Kundan Sharma, who had already been granted bail, and in light of the alleged settlement and repayment of the disputed amount?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail in appropriate cases.

The Court considered the established bail principles concerning the period of custody, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the need to avoid pre-trial detention becoming punitive.

The alleged offences were examined under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS.

The Court also imposed statutory and case-management conditions concerning the applicant’s appearance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since 30 March 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although the State alleged direct involvement and referred to the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the Court found the circumstances sufficient to exercise its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The alleged repayment of the disputed amount, the asserted settlement with the complainants, and the grant of bail to the similarly situated co-accused were relevant considerations placed before the Court.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court held that continued incarceration was not warranted at that stage.

The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, to comply with proceedings in the event of absence or proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.