Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing where applicants had no antecedents and prolonged trial was anticipated.

The applicants—Sunil Pratap, Naresh Manhar, Hira Diwakar, Rakesh Ratre, Sakshi Singh and Bhuneshwar Banjare—filed their first applications for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 96/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, for offences under Sections 318(4), 335, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the accused persons demanded ₹4.5 lakh per person on the representation that they would secure employment in the Postal Department. The complainant allegedly paid ₹9 lakh but did not receive joining letters.

During investigation, five accused persons were arrested and a charge-sheet was filed on 14 May 2026. Further investigation allegedly revealed a wider operation involving preparation and supply of forged MBBS/BAMS degrees and marksheets, including documents purportedly issued by reputed universities. The prosecution claimed that more than ₹2 crore had been collected from approximately 55 persons.

The applicants contended that the seized educational documents had not been adequately investigated, that the persons to whom the documents allegedly belonged had neither been identified nor examined, and that no complaints from such persons were on record. They further relied on the grant of bail to co-accused Ankit Tiwari, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial.

The applicants had been in custody from different dates, namely 19 February, 25 March and 7 April 2026.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the investigation and the materials collected against them?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, parity with co-accused Ankit Tiwari, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial justified release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 335, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In exercising its discretionary bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, the applicants’ criminal antecedents, the possibility of delay in trial, and the principle of parity with a similarly situated co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The Court also applied the settled principle that the merits of the prosecution case should not be conclusively determined at the stage of bail.

The Court noted that the prosecution alleged a serious and extensive forgery and cheating operation involving forged educational qualifications and recruitment-related payments.

However, for the purpose of deciding bail, the Court gave weight to the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicants had remained in custody for substantial periods, they had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The Court also relied on parity because co-accused Ankit Tiwari had previously been granted regular bail by the High Court in MCRC No. 4642/2026.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified in the circumstances and that the applicants could be released subject to stringent conditions.

Sunil Pratap and Sakshi Singh were required to furnish two local sureties each, while the remaining applicants were required to furnish two sureties in the like amount.

The release was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and consequences for absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.