Regular bail granted considering prolonged custody, charge-sheet filing, and likely delay in trial.

The five applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 51/2026 registered at Police Station Bande, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, for alleged offences under Sections 308(5), 318(4), 354 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that an unidentified person posing as a sadhu, accompanied by a five-legged Nandi bull, induced the complainant to believe that gold was buried in his house and that rituals and specified medicines were necessary to extract it and cure illnesses in his family.

The complainant allegedly purchased medicines and puja articles worth approximately Rs. 5,00,000, and was thereafter given a sealed pot represented to contain gold. Upon opening it, he allegedly found 21 brass idols instead of gold, leading to registration of the FIR against the shopkeeper and other unknown persons.

The applicants denied receiving any money from the complainant and contended that he had voluntarily purchased the medicines directly from the shopkeeper.

They further submitted that Applicants 1 to 3 had no criminal antecedents, while Applicants 4 and 5 had one pending criminal case each.

They claimed to have remained in custody since 30 June 2026 and argued that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail, principally relying on the antecedents of Applicants 4 and 5.

The applicants’ earlier bail application before the court below had been rejected.

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

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 308(5), 318(4), 354 and 61(2) of the BNS.

In exercising its discretionary bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the overall facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of detention, the procedural stage of the case, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court acknowledged the nature and gravity of the alleged cheating and associated offences but found that the applicants had been in judicial custody since 30 June 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

These factors reduced the justification for continued pre-trial detention, particularly when the applicants could be subjected to conditions securing their presence and protecting the integrity of the proceedings.

Although the State relied on the antecedents of Applicants 4 and 5, the Court, upon considering the case diary and the overall circumstances, concluded that the applicants had made out a case for regular bail.

The High Court directed that all five applicants be released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds with two local sureties each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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