Regular bail justified after chargesheet filing, limited antecedents, and prolonged custody likely delaying trial.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 108/2026 registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 341(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant induced the complainant, Prakash Kumar Thakur, to pay ₹11,00,000 on the false promise of securing direct recruitment as a Forest Guard.

The amount allegedly comprised ₹10,00,000 paid through UPI and ₹1,00,000 in cash.

The applicant was further alleged to have supplied a forged photocopy of a Forest Department appointment order.

The applicant denied the allegations and contended that he had been falsely implicated owing to a pre-existing monetary dispute relating to a bakery transaction.

He relied on the documentary nature of the evidence, the seizure of relevant documents, his responsibility towards his aged parents, his two explained criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and his custody since 30 May 2026.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 341(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court considered that the applicant had only two criminal antecedents, one under the IPC and one under the Negotiable Instruments Act, both of which had been explained in the bail application.

It further noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the applicant had remained in custody since 30 May 2026, reducing the need for continued custodial detention for investigation.

Since the trial was likely to take further time, the Court found that the applicant was entitled to bail, while safeguarding the proceedings through conditions relating to attendance, cooperation with the trial, and personal presence at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to appear personally at specified stages, and to face appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, absconding, or misuse of bail.

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