Regular bail granted where a young accused had no antecedents and investigation remained incomplete.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 401/2026 registered at City Kotwali Police Station, Bilaspur, for an offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that amounts of ₹89,600, ₹98,000 and another amount were transferred or withdrawn from the complainant’s joint South Indian Bank account through UPI transactions without her knowledge or consent.

The transactions were allegedly connected with bank account No. 44744438383 and mobile numbers associated with the applicant and other persons.

The applicant, aged about 20 years, claimed that one Ram Dhakad induced him to provide his bank-account details by representing that money belonging to Ram Dhakad’s sister would be deposited into the account.

After ₹89,600 was credited, the applicant allegedly retained ₹12,000 and withdrew the balance for Ram Dhakad, without knowledge of the fraud.

The applicant contended that he had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 9 July 2026, the charge-sheet had not been filed, and the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant was involved in cyber fraud and embezzlement of money.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The accusation was under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

In exercising its discretionary bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s age, length of custody, criminal antecedents, stage of investigation and likely duration of the trial, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The bail order was also made subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of liberty, including conditions concerning appearance, adjournments, proclamation and personal attendance at material stages of the trial.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that the applicant’s bank account had been used in transactions connected with the alleged cyber fraud, and noted the State’s objection to bail.

However, at the bail stage, it considered that the applicant was a young person of approximately 20 years, had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 9 July 2026, and that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

Since the trial was likely to take time, these factors weighed in favour of granting bail under Section 483 BNSS.

The Court expressly avoided commenting on the merits of the prosecution case and imposed conditions intended to ensure the applicant’s continued participation in the proceedings.

The release was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, and compliance with consequences for absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.