Roshan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The primary consideration for granting bail was the applicant's readiness to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2,52,680/-. The Court reasoned that this deposit would safeguard the interests of the complainant and the State pending the final outcome of the trial. The Court directed that the deposited amount be kept in a fixed deposit as per the trial court's directions, subject to the final decision of the trial. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with a solvent surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The applicant is required to remain present before the trial court on all fixed dates and abide by the conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS. This order is effective until the end of the trial, and will become ineffective in case of bail jump or breach of conditions. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by the applicant, Roshan, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 323/2026, registered at Police Station Thandla, District Jhabua, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The prosecution alleges that the applicant's mobile number was used to initiate contact with the complainant for a fraudulent transaction involving the sale of 20 mobile phones for a total of Rs. 2,70,980/-. The complainant transferred Rs. 2,52,680/- to the applicant's account, after which the accused persons became unreachable and did not provide a GST Bill. The applicant has been in custody since June 12, 2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his readiness to deposit the alleged fraudulent amount and his claim of being falsely implicated. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant (Roshan): The applicant argues that he has been falsely implicated and is not the person who perpetrated the fraud. He acknowledges that the entire amount of Rs. 2,52,680/- was received in his account and expresses his readiness to deposit this sum. He also states he was unaware of the transaction or dispute and has been in custody since June 12, 2026. Therefore, he prays for the grant of bail. Respondent/State: The State opposes the bail application, contending that the applicant is a beneficiary of the alleged fraud. It is further submitted that the applicant permitted his bank account to be used for the fraudulent activity in exchange for Rs. 30,000/-. Based on this, the State argues that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.