Regular bail is warranted after charge-sheet filing where the accused has no antecedents and trial is likely to be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2026 registered at Police Station Ambagarh-Chowki, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh-Chowki, for offences under Sections 318(4), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that, between 7 November 2025 and 6 December 2025, the complainant was contacted through WhatsApp and a mobile application by persons posing as representatives of a share-trading or investment platform.

On the promise of exorbitant returns, the complainant transferred an aggregate amount of ₹1,49,50,000 to various bank accounts as instructed by the accused.

The applicant contended that the electronic, banking and digital evidence was already in the possession of the investigating agency; no recovery had been made from him; the transferred funds were credited to accounts of co-accused persons; and his specific role or direct connection with the alleged inducement had not been established.

He further submitted that he had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 16 February 2026, and that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

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 established bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the stage of investigation, the necessity of further custodial detention, and the likelihood of the trial being concluded within a reasonable time.

The prosecution offences invoked were Sections 318(4), 317(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent delay in trial, and address misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court considered the case diary and balanced the seriousness of the alleged cyber-fraud involving ₹1,49,50,000 against the circumstances favouring release.

Although the allegations were grave, the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for further custodial interrogation.

The Court also took into account that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in judicial custody since 16 February 2026, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court concluded that continued pre-trial detention was not justified and that the applicant could be released subject to stringent safeguards.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, 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 order further authorized consequential proceedings in accordance with law in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.