Regular bail granted in job-fraud case where charge-sheet is filed and co-accused secured parity.

The applicant, Genrel Singh, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 106/2025 for allegedly cheating the complainant, Jaikishan Agarwal, of Rs. 20,86,500/-.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant posed as a Director of Khalsa Tissue Paper and J.V. Micro Finance Company, promising the complainant and his wife bank jobs in Maharashtra through influence.

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing false implication, parity with a co-accused (Vaishali Genrel Singh Lohiya) who was already granted bail, and the completion of the investigation (filing of the charge-sheet).

The State and Objector opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the fraud and the existence of a previous criminal antecedent.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the nature of the offense and the principle of parity?

The Court's decision was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail.

It applied the settled principles of parity in bail matters where a co-accused has already been released.

Furthermore, the Court touched upon the principle of criminal liability of the bribe-giver, noting that the conduct of a complainant paying money for illegal employment may amount to an offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS were cited as punitive measures for non-compliance with bail conditions.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—specifically the fraudulent collection of over Rs. 20 Lakhs—against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had undergone a period of detention.

Crucially, the Court observed that a co-accused had already been granted bail by the trial court, making the applicant eligible for similar relief under the principle of parity.

The Court also took into account that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

To safeguard the judicial process, the Court imposed stringent conditions, including mandatory presence during key trial stages (charge framing and statement recording) and the filing of an undertaking against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions, including the applicant's regular appearance before the trial court and the prevention of witness intimidation.

Additionally, the Court issued a significant directive allowing the prosecuting agency to initiate proceedings against the complainant, noting that paying a bribe for employment through illegal modes constitutes criminal conduct.