Regular bail granted despite criminal antecedents due to custody, unfiled charge-sheet, and likely trial delay.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 04/2020 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018.

The prosecution alleged that various borrowers obtained overdraft facilities, term loans and bank guarantees from Bank of Baroda, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, resulting in fraudulent withdrawal of approximately ₹504.15 lakh.

According to the prosecution, the applicant acted as an agent, prepared forged documents, arranged for firms to be registered, induced guarantors to mortgage their properties, retained signed blank cheque books, and controlled the loan transactions without the knowledge of the concerned borrowers or guarantors.

The applicant had been in custody since 18 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on the likely delay in trial and the fact that two of his alleged criminal antecedents had ended in acquittal.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had seven criminal antecedents and was a habitual offender.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, his period of custody, the pending investigation and the likely duration of trial.

2. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents, including the antecedents alleged to be of a similar nature, justified rejection of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the stage of the investigation, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The Court also directed compliance with statutory and procedural safeguards concerning attendance, adjournments, proclamation and proceedings for non-appearance, including Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 84 of the BNSS, as referred to in the bail conditions.

The Court acknowledged the serious allegations concerning fraudulent bank loans, forged documents and manipulation of loan transactions, but found that the applicant had remained in custody since 18 June 2026, the charge-sheet had not been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

In assessing the applicant’s antecedents, the Court noted that he had already been acquitted in two cases and that the remaining antecedents were alleged to be of a similar nature; nevertheless, it treated these circumstances, together with the applicant’s custody and the pending investigation, as sufficient to justify release on bail.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case and imposed conditions intended to secure the applicant’s attendance and prevent misuse of the liberty of bail.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on every date fixed by the trial Court, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to face appropriate proceedings in case of deliberate absence or misuse of bail.

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