Regular bail granted where allegations rest primarily on documentary evidence and further custodial detention is unnecessary.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 81/2026 registered at Police Station Kondagaon for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, between 22 September 2024 and 22 March 2026, the applicant and co-accused Sukhdar Poyam induced several persons by promising to arrange motorcycles or scooters at discounted prices through Sah Auto Service. They allegedly collected cash amounts ranging from Rs. 65,000 to Rs. 85,000, along with Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, bank passbooks and photographs, and thereafter obtained vehicle financing in the complainants’ names while retaining the cash amounts.

The applicant contended that he was merely a Business Executive engaged in processing vehicle-finance applications and that his acts were limited to collecting KYC documents, uploading details, conducting biometric verification and processing finance proposals in the ordinary course of employment. He further asserted that there was no evidence of personal receipt or misappropriation of the alleged amounts, that the case was substantially documentary, that he had cooperated with the investigation, had no criminal antecedents, and had remained in custody since 4 June 2026.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had participated in inducing several persons and that investigation concerning other alleged victims was still pending.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegations of cheating, forgery-related offences and common intention.

2. Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, period of custody, documentary nature of the evidence and the fact that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed justified release on bail while investigation remained pending.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 and 3(5) of the BNS, concerning the prosecution’s allegations of cheating, preparation or use of false documents and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration, the stage and likely duration of investigation, the nature of the evidence, and the necessity of continued custody.

Bail was granted subject to conditions securing the applicant’s attendance, preventing adjournments when witnesses were present, requiring personal appearance at material stages of trial, and permitting action in case of misuse of liberty.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the State’s submission that investigation into other alleged victims was continuing.

However, it gave weight to the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, his custody since 4 June 2026, and the submission that he had acted as a finance-processing executive rather than as the person who personally received or misappropriated the complainants’ money.

The Court also noted that the prosecution case was primarily documentary, that the relevant material could be collected independently by the investigating agency, and that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed, suggesting that further custodial detention was not necessary for investigation.

Balancing the nature of the allegations against these mitigating circumstances and the likely delay arising from numerous witnesses and documentary evidence, the Court found it appropriate to exercise its power under Section 483 BNSS in favour of bail.

The applicant, Jayanto Haldar, was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS, and to face legal consequences in the event of absence, misuse of bail or non-compliance with the proclamation process.