Regular bail granted in paddy procurement fraud case considering parity and duration of judicial custody.

The applicants, Santosh Kumar Sahu (Paddy Procurement Officer) and Shridhar Parihar (Computer Operator), were employed at the Paddy Purchase Centre, Jhagarhatta

They were arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/2026 for allegedly defrauding the government by permitting millers to transport paddy in vehicles without GPS and allowing overloading, resulting in a financial loss of ₹70,122

The applicants contended they lacked the authority to inspect GPS equipment and were acting pursuant to official delivery orders

They further noted they had been granted bail by the High Court in a related matter involving the same Society (Crime No. 34/2026) and had been in custody since February 17, 2026

The State opposed the bail, noting that the charge sheet had not yet been filed

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given the nature of the allegations and their prior bail history in related cases

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail

The substantive charges were considered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Section 318(4) (Cheating), Section 316(5) (Criminal Breach of Trust), and Section 3(5) (Joint Liability/Common Intention)

The Court balanced the gravity of the economic offence against the principles of liberty and the likelihood of a protracted trial

The Court’s reasoning centered on parity and the duration of incarceration.

It observed that the applicants had already been granted bail by the High Court in a previous, similar case (Crime No. 34/2026) involving the same Society, which indicated a consistent judicial approach to their involvement

Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicants had been detained since February 17, 2026, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future

While the State raised concerns regarding the pending charge sheet, the Court determined that the specific facts and circumstances—including the nature of the allegations regarding GPS and overloading—did not necessitate further pre-trial detention

The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each

The grant of bail was made conditional upon the applicants not seeking unnecessary adjournments, appearing personally for key trial stages (opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS), and adhering to protocols regarding proclamations under Section 84 of the BNSS

Any violation of these conditions would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty