Settlement of loan via OTS prior to FIR warrants grant of bail in alleged bank fraud.

The applicant, Swapan Kumar Guchait, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

He was arrested on December 7, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 410/2024 for allegedly conspiring with others to obtain agricultural loans from Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank using fraudulent land documents.

Specifically, the applicant was accused of securing a loan of ₹8,00,000/- by showing parcels of land as collateral where discrepancies in title were later discovered.

The applicant contended that the matter is civil in nature and that he had fully settled the loan through a One Time Settlement (OTS) on March 12, 2024, prior to the registration of the FIR on June 3, 2024.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the completion of investigation, the nature of the dispute, and the settlement of the loan amount.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court and Sessions Court to grant regular bail.

The case involved allegations under Sections 420 (Cheating) and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court also referenced procedural requirements under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding the appearance of the accused and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons.

The Court evaluated the applicant’s custody since December 7, 2025, and the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

The Court took significant note of the defense's submission that the entire loan account had been settled through a valid OTS on March 12, 2024, suggesting that the financial grievance of the complainant bank had been addressed prior to the FIR.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Given these factors, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary for the purpose of the trial.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant's presence at all critical trial stages—including the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements—and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Court held that the settlement of the loan and lack of criminal history justified the grant of bail.