Relief of bail granted where monetary liability is deposited under protest and investigation is complete.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Jigyasa Mehta, was induced to invest ₹50,16,000/- in share trading through a fraudulent mobile application ("Surver Inwa").

Investigation revealed that ₹6,00,000/- of the defrauded amount was transferred into a bank account operated by the applicant and a co-accused.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since November 2, 2025. A final report has been submitted, and the applicant has deposited the disputed ₹6,00,000/- before the trial court under protest.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the completion of the investigation, the nature of his involvement, and parity with a co-accused.

The court applied the provisions governing bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC).

The case involved substantive charges under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for cheating and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act for punishment for cheating by personation using a computer resource.

The court also considered the principles of parity in criminal jurisprudence and the procedural requirements for witness examination under Section 346 of the BNSS (Section 309 CrPC).

The Court observed that the primary allegation against the applicant was limited to permitting his business account to be used for the transaction of defrauded money, rather than direct inducement of the complainant.

The Court noted that the investigation was complete, seizures were made, and no criminal antecedents existed against the applicant.

Justice Kalgaonkar emphasized that the co-accused, Rohit Bhai Patel, had already been granted bail on April 16, 2026, establishing a ground for parity.

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that since the applicant is a businessman with family dependencies and the trial is expected to take time, continued incarceration was unnecessary as there was no evident risk of fleeing, recidivism, or tampering with evidence.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions, including regular attendance at trial, no involvement in similar offenses, and no tampering with witnesses.