Regular bail granted for financial embezzlement upon filing of charge-sheet and absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant, a Collection Manager at Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd., Pithora branch, was arrested on 30.11.2025 following a complaint alleging embezzlement of Rs. 3,19,034/- from investors.

Specifically, it was alleged the applicant collected Rs. 62,767/- for a loan closure but the transaction was not recorded in the branch registers.

The applicant contended that he had forwarded the receipt to the Branch Manager, but due to his subsequent transfer to the Gharghoda branch, he was no longer responsible for the record-keeping formalities, which the Branch Manager failed to complete.

A case was registered under Sections 420, 408, 409, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The applicant approached the High Court seeking regular bail after the filing of the charge-sheet.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the filing of the charge-sheet and the duration of his incarceration.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which stipulates the powers of the High Court regarding bail.

The Court also considered the substantive offences under Sections 420 (cheating), 408 (criminal breach of trust by clerk/servant), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant/banker), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

Furthermore, the Court integrated procedural requirements for bail conduct under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS to ensure the applicant’s presence during trial.

The Court evaluated the merits of the bail application by considering the nature of the allegations alongside the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation had effectively concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet before the competent court.

The Court observed that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and had already spent significant time in custody since his arrest on 30.11.2025.

Balancing the gravity of the alleged financial embezzlement against the likelihood that the trial would take a considerable amount of time to conclude, the Court determined that continued pre-trial detention was not warranted.

However, to mitigate the risk of trial delays, the Court imposed strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking adjournments during witness testimony and mandatory presence during key procedural stages.

The holding is subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties and adhering to several conditions: (i) filing an undertaking not to seek adjournments during evidence; (ii) appearing on every date fixed by the trial court; and (iii) appearing personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Any default or misuse of liberty would allow the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNSS.