Regular bail granted as material prosecution witnesses failed to support accusations during the trial.

The applicant filed his fourth bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 149 of 2023

The applicant was arrested on December 3, 2024, for alleged offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that the main accused, Hemant Bagdi, used the applicant's photograph to open a forged bank account in the name of Mahendra Parmar to secure and withdraw a loan of Rs. 5 Lacs

The applicant contended that his photograph was misused without his knowledge, he did not sign the account opening forms, and he did not withdraw any money

While three prior bail applications were either granted temporarily or dismissed on merits, nine material prosecution witnesses, including the complainants, have now been examined

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the testimony of material prosecution witnesses and the duration of his incarceration

2. Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or recidivism based on his socio-economic status and criminal antecedents

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail

Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, concerning cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy

Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the timely examination of witnesses

The principle that continued incarceration is unnecessary when there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses

The Court observed that the applicant has been in judicial custody for approximately fifteen months

Upon reviewing the trial progress, the Court noted that material prosecution witnesses, including complainants Mahendra (PW-8) and Rakesh (PW-9), did not support the accusations against the applicant and stated they were not acquainted with him

The Court found that the handwriting expert’s report regarding the forged account opening form is still pending, and the trial is likely to take more time to conclude

Addressing the applicant’s criminal history, the Court noted that past cases resulted in either acquittal or a fine, suggesting no significant risk of recidivism

Given the applicant's status as a laborer with family responsibilities, the Court concluded that there was no prima facie evidence of a flight risk or potential to influence bank and police officials

It held that the veracity of the applicant's complicity would be determined during the trial, but current circumstances did not justify continued incarceration

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including regular court attendance, a prohibition on committing further offenses, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or witnesses

The trial court was directed to ensure these conditions were reproduced on the bonds for the accused and surety