Regular bail granted based on parity and lack of criminal antecedents in employment fraud case.

The applicant, Yogesh Dewangan, filed a first bail application seeking regular bail following his arrest on January 16, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that on January 4, 2024, the applicant and a co-accused (Motilal Dewangan) took money from the complainant, Sunil Kurrey, promising a compassionate appointment in the Excise Department.

The FIR (Crime No. 37/2026) was registered two years later on January 14, 2026, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The applicant argued that the transaction was a personal repayment to a co-accused via PhonePe and that he had been falsely implicated.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, based on the principle of parity and the lack of criminal antecedents.

The court's decision was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

It applied the principle of judicial parity, referencing the prior grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused (Motilal Madhukar) in MCRCA No. 218/2026.

The court also considered the specific conditions for liberty as outlined in Section 269 (non-appearance), Section 84 (proclamation), and Section 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court weighed the nature and gravity of the allegations against the fact that the applicant has no prior criminal history.

A significant factor in the reasoning was the grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused, Motilal Madhukar, on February 10, 2026, which established a ground for parity.

The Court further noted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since mid-January 2026 and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in a short timeframe.

Because the charge-sheet had not yet been filed, and given the delay in the initial lodging of the FIR, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted provided strict conditions were met.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) he must not seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) he must appear at all trial stages; and (iii) any violation of bail terms or failure to appear under Section 84 of BNSS would lead to proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS.

The holding directly answered the issue by granting the relief of regular bail.