Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing where the accused has no antecedents and a limited alleged role.

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC?

The court held

The High Court allowed the bail application and directed that Manoj Dewangan be released on bail in Crime No. 6/2024 upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

It also directed

The release was made subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, to comply with proceedings arising from any failure to appear, and to remain personally present on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court.

01Facts

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 6/2024 registered at Range Cyber Police Station, Raipur, for offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

p. 2

The complainant alleged that various mobile numbers and bank accounts were used to induce him to deposit approximately ₹45 lakh, resulting in cyber fraud.

p. 2

During investigation, mobile number 9516808557 was found to be registered in the name of Suman Yadav, who denied ever purchasing or using the SIM.

pp. 3–5

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, a Point of Sale (PoS) agent, activated the SIM in violation of KYC requirements and supplied it to other accused persons/cybercriminals.

pp. 3–5

The applicant was arrested on 7 July 2026 and remained in judicial custody; the charge-sheet had been filed by the time the bail application was considered.

pp. 2, 5–6

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC?

p. 1, 6

ii.Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the limited allegation of activating the SIM justified release on bail despite the prosecution’s allegations of facilitating cyber fraud?

pp. 5–6

iii.Whether the alleged non-compliance with the arrest safeguards stated in Arnesh Kumar, Satender Kumar Antil, and Shailesh Kumar Singh supported the applicant’s claim for bail?

p. 3

03Law Applied

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

p. 1

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, relating respectively to cheating and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

p. 1

The applicant relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 (8) SCC 273, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2021 (10) SCC 51, and Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 2963/2025, concerning safeguards against unnecessary arrest in offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

p. 3

In considering bail, the Court applied the established principles concerning custody, the nature of allegations, criminal antecedents, the stage of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of trial.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Section 84 Section 351

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 34

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 269 Section 209

04Reasoning

The Court considered the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant had improperly activated and supplied the SIM used in the cyber fraud, as well as the State’s submission that he had admitted such conduct during interrogation.

pp. 4–5

However, the Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the immediate investigative need for continued custody; that the applicant had no criminal antecedents; that he had remained in custody since 7 July 2026; and that the principal allegation against him was limited to activation of the disputed SIM.

p. 6

Given that the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that continued detention was not necessary and that the applicant could be released subject to conditions designed to secure his presence and prevent misuse of bail.

p. 6