Unexplained delay in FIR and reliance on uncorroborated memorandum statements of co-accused justify grant of bail.

The applicant sought regular bail in two separate cases arising from a single incident involving a well-planned financial fraud

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with co-accused Hasmuddin and Aamir Khan, impersonated NABARD officials to induce villagers into providing sensitive loan documents and personal identification, subsequently siphoning approximately ₹1.40 crores from their bank accounts

The applicant allegedly received defrauded funds into his Punjab National Bank account and used a portion to obtain a gold loan

The applicant was arrested on 29.09.2025 and 05.01.2026 respectively

He contended that his name was not in the FIR, the implication was based solely on the memorandum statements of co-accused, and there was a significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIRs

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, despite the gravity of the economic offense

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

Sections 318(4) (cheating), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 317(4), 111 (organized crime), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

established principles concerning the evidentiary weight of memorandum statements of co-accused and the impact of inordinate delays in filing an FIR (11 months in one instance and 2 months in another) on the prosecution's credibility

The Court observed that while the allegations involved a serious economic offense, the prosecution’s version was weakened by significant delays in reporting the incidents

The Court noted that the applicant's involvement appeared to be primarily founded upon the memorandum statements of co-accused persons, which lacked independent and cogent corroboration

The Court emphasized that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, yet no direct evidence had been presented to establish a definitive nexus between the applicant and the fraudulent transactions

Given that the applicant had undergone a substantial period of pre-trial detention and the trial was expected to be prolonged due to a "bulky charge-sheet," the Court found the continued incarceration unjustified

It held that the lack of direct evidence and the delay in FIR outweighed the gravity of the offense for the purpose of bail

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties for each case, subject to conditions including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence during trial stages such as framing of charges and recording of statements; and (iii) compliance with procedures under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS in the event of default