Regular bail granted in cheating case upon completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet.

The applicant, acting as the Managing Director of Kavya Industries, was accused of cheating the complainant, Navin Jain, of ₹5,51,000/- by falsely promising to appoint him as a "Super Distributor" for an oil manufacturing company in Chhattisgarh

Based on these allegations, FIR Crime No. 87/2024 was registered on February 7, 2024, at Police Station Kawardha

The applicant was arrested on November 23, 2025

Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing that the dispute was commercial in nature, the investigation was complete, and co-accused individuals had already been released following a compromise

1. 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 detention

The court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant bail to an accused in custody

The substantive offences alleged were under Section 420 (cheating) and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC

The court also referenced procedural safeguards and penalties for bail default under Sections 269 (non-attendance), 84 (proclamation for absconding persons), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording of statement of accused) of the BNSS

The court’s reasoning centered on the necessity of continued detention versus the stage of the criminal proceedings. It noted that the applicant had been in jail since November 23, 2025, and that the charge sheet had already been filed, meaning custodial interrogation was no longer required

The court observed that the applicant had only one previous criminal antecedent, which had been satisfactorily explained in the application

Furthermore, the court considered the parity with co-accused persons who were released by police following a compromise, and the likelihood that the trial would consume significant time

By evaluating the nature of the offence and the lack of a need for further custody, the court determined that the applicant was fit for enlargement on bail

The court held that given the filing of the charge sheet and the period of detention, the applicant should not be detained further

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) he must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS; and (iii) any failure to appear without sufficient cause would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail