Regular bail granted for BNS forgery offenses based on charge-sheet filing and parity with co-accused.

The applicant, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, filed a first bail application following his arrest on January 20, 2026, for alleged property fraud

The informant, Manish Shukla, alleged that after the death of his wife (Amita Pandey), the applicant (his brother-in-law) was appointed guardian of the informant’s minor children regarding inherited property

It was alleged that the applicant and co-accused fraudulently declared the informant as deceased in legal documents and affidavits to sell the minors' property located in Village Sakri

The applicant argued that the designation of the informant as "Late" in the sale deed was a clerical error by the document writer

The prosecution has already filed the charge-sheet, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the completion of the investigation and parity with co-accused

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) [formerly Section 439 CrPC], which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail

The substantive offences involve Sections 420 (cheating), 464 (making a false document), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine), and 34 (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the procedural status of the case.

It observed that the investigation was substantially complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed

A significant factor in the court's reasoning was the principle of parity, noting that co-accused individuals had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same High Court in MCRCA No. 334 of 2026

The Court further considered the applicant's duration of custody since January 20, 2026, and the fact that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future, concluding that continued incarceration was not warranted

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant's strict adherence to trial proceedings, including a prohibition on seeking adjournments during witness testimony and mandatory presence during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS. The court warned that default would permit the trial court to initiate proceedings under Section 209 or 269 of the BNS