Regular bail granted due to prolonged FIR delay, completed investigation, clean antecedents, and likely trial delay.

The applicant, a Field Officer at Axis Bank, was accused of assisting the complainant in operating a savings account and, on the pretext of activating ATM and mobile-banking facilities, retaining the complainant’s ATM card and obtaining his mobile number.

Between 16 February and 22 March 2024, approximately ₹9,50,000 was allegedly withdrawn through ATM and IMPS transactions without authorisation.

A further ₹1,09,000 was allegedly taken in cash on the representation that it would be credited to the complainant’s agricultural loan account.

The complainant lodged the report on 10 July 2025, more than 15 months after the alleged transactions, leading to registration of Crime No. 65/2025 under Sections 420 and 409(2) IPC; Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act was subsequently added.

The applicant was arrested on 26 May 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed by the time of consideration of the bail application.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on the delay in lodging the FIR, the complainant’s literacy and knowledge of banking operations, absence of criminal antecedents, and the filing of the charge-sheet.

The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were under Sections 420 and 409(2) of the IPC and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, concerning cheating, criminal breach of trust and cheating by personation through computer or communication resources.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the prima facie circumstances, the stage of investigation, the period of custody, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the requirement to secure the applicant’s presence during proceedings.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the need for continued custodial interrogation.

It also treated the more than 15-month delay between the alleged transactions and registration of the FIR as a relevant circumstance favouring bail.

The applicant had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 26 May 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

Although the allegations involved substantial alleged withdrawals and misuse of banking credentials, the Court considered that the prosecution case would ultimately require adjudication at trial and that continued detention was not warranted at the bail stage.

Bail was therefore granted subject to conditions designed to prevent delay, secure attendance, and deter misuse of liberty.

The applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on scheduled dates, to appear personally on the dates of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS, and to comply with the consequences prescribed in the event of absence or misuse of bail.

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