Regular bail granted where the alleged forged domicile certificate was never used to secure employment.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 78/2026 registered at Police Station Balrampur for offences under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 61(2)(a), 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Omprakash Chandravanshi prepared forged domicile certificates, including one in the applicant’s name, using documents relating to another person and a school in Dongargarh. The applicant allegedly obtained the certificate to secure employment, although he was not alleged to have used it for that purpose

The applicant had been in custody since 23 May 2026. He contended that he was innocent, had not used the certificate, and that similarly placed co-accused Akash Sharma and Sumit Singh had already been granted bail by the High Court

The State opposed the application

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, and the period of custody

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail, particularly when he was not alleged to have used the forged domicile certificate to obtain employment

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 61(2)(a), 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act

The governing bail principles required consideration of the nature of the allegations, the material collected, the applicant’s period of custody, the likelihood of the trial taking time, and the risk of misuse of liberty

The Court also considered parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail

After examining the case diary and hearing both parties, the Court found that the applicant was not alleged to have used the domicile certificate for securing employment

This circumstance reduced the immediate gravity attributed to his role for the purpose of bail, notwithstanding the allegations concerning preparation of the certificate

The Court further took into account that the applicant had remained in custody since 23 May 2026, that co-accused Akash Sharma and Sumit Singh had already been granted bail, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, these cumulative factors justified extending the benefit of regular bail to the applicant

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date as directed, to comply with proceedings concerning non-appearance or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS

The Court directed that a certified copy of the order be sent to the trial court for compliance