Regular bail granted in cheating case considering charge-sheet filing and duration of pretrial detention.

The applicant, Hirendra Kumar Sahu, along with his father (co-accused), allegedly induced the complainant to invest ₹2,00,51,000 in share market trading under the promise of doubling the investment

The complainant made payments through cash and online transactions but received only ₹10,00,000 in return, after which the accused allegedly refused to return the remaining balance

Consequently, an FIR (Crime No. 551/2025) was registered at Police Station Pamgarh for cheating and common intention

The applicant was arrested on December 8, 2025

The applicant contended that the complainant was aware of the market risks and that the partial return of funds demonstrated a lack of fraudulent intent

The State opposed bail, citing the magnitude of the fraud and the applicant's two criminal antecedents of a similar nature from the year 2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of detention, and his criminal history

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail

Sections 318(4) (cheating) and 3(5) (joint liability/common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The court also considered the principle of judicial consistency, noting that the applicant had been granted bail in a similar previous case

Procedural status regarding the filing of the charge-sheet and the expected duration of the trial

The Court balanced the gravity of the offense, involving a substantial financial loss to the complainant, against the procedural facts of the case.

It noted that the applicant had been in custody since December 8, 2025, and that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had been filed.

Although the State emphasized the applicant's criminal antecedents, the Court found it significant that in one of the two prior cases of a similar nature, the applicant had already been granted bail by the High Court in February 2026.

The Court reasoned that since the trial was likely to take time and the applicant had already been granted bail in a concurrent matter, further detention was not warranted, provided the interests of the trial were secured through stringent conditions.

The applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present [para. 8(i)], must appear on every trial date or face proceedings under Section 269 of the BNS [para. 8(ii)], and must be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS [para. 8(iv)]. Any misuse of liberty would authorize the trial court to initiate proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS or Section 84 of the BNSS.