Regular bail granted where charge-sheet is filed, applicants lack antecedents, and trial is likely to be prolonged.

The applicants—Manjur Khan, Anjur Khan @ Ram Singh Marabi, and Ameen Khan—were arrested in connection with Crime No. 113/2026 registered at Outpost Bariyon, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for alleged offences under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicants represented themselves as contractors undertaking canal work, demanded ₹5,50,000 from the complainant for obtaining approval of a tender, and induced him to withdraw and hand over that amount on the assurance that it would subsequently be waived.

The applicants thereafter allegedly switched off their phones and removed the JCB machine from the village.

They were arrested on 11 May 2026.

The applicants denied the allegations and contended that they had merely undertaken JCB-related work for the complainant, and that the criminal case arose out of a payment dispute.

The charge-sheet had been filed, the applicants had no criminal antecedents, and the offences were triable by the JMFC.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the anticipated delay in trial.

Whether the applicants should be released subject to conditions securing their presence and preventing misuse of the liberty of bail.

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

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicants’ criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

The Court also imposed conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, refraining from unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and compliance with applicable proceedings in case of absence or misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the allegations of cheating, personation, conspiracy and common liability under the BNS, but found that the applicants had no criminal antecedents, the investigation had culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet, and their continued custody was unlikely to serve a further investigative purpose.

Considering that the applicants had remained in judicial custody since May 2026 and that the trial was likely to take considerable time, the balance favoured release on bail.

The applicants’ defence—that the dispute arose from JCB work and payment—was not conclusively determined at the bail stage, but was sufficient to be considered along with the other bail factors.

Their presence during trial and protection of the prosecution evidence were secured through stringent conditions.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of their statements under Section 351 BNSS.

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