Regular bail granted on parity to sale-deed witness after completion of investigation and likely prolonged trial.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Crime No. 378/2023 registered at Police Station Ringnod, District Ratlam, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

His first bail application had been dismissed by the High Court on 10 July 2026 for furnishing incomplete and inadequate information.

The prosecution alleged that, after the death of Munnalal Jaiswal, co-accused persons impersonated him and executed forged sale deeds concerning land bearing Survey No. 501/8 in favour of Junaid, Nadir and Munnalal Chouhan.

The applicant was alleged to have facilitated the impersonation and was a witness to the sale deed dated 15 September 2023.

He had been in custody since 2 November 2025, and the final report had been filed after completion of investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, which confers discretionary power on the High Court to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC, concerning cheating by personation, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal conspiracy and common intention.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s role, the period of custody, completion of investigation, likelihood of flight from justice, possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, criminal antecedents, and parity with co-accused.

The Court also recognised that the merits and veracity of the prosecution case would ultimately be determined at trial.

The Court found that the applicant’s alleged role was that of a witness to the sale deed and that the prosecution case regarding his facilitation of the impersonation would require determination through evidence at trial.

The investigation had concluded and the final report had been filed, reducing the immediate risk of interference with the investigation.

The Court also considered the applicant’s custody since 2 November 2025, the expected length of the trial, his age and occupation, family responsibilities, absence of substantial criminal antecedents or any major previous conviction, and the bail granted to similarly situated co-accused, particularly Prashant Yogi.

On these factors, the Court held that there was no substantial likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses, and no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.

These findings were expressly confined to the adjudication of the bail application and were not treated as observations on the merits of the trial.

The release was subject to conditions requiring his appearance on every date of hearing, abstention from similar offences, non-inducement or intimidation of persons acquainted with the facts, non-tampering with evidence or witnesses, and compliance with the provisions governing examination of witnesses in attendance.

The bail order was to remain effective until conclusion of the trial, subject to cancellation by the Trial Court in the event of breach of the bail conditions.