Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR, Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv., Ms. Kumari Rashmi Rani, Adv., Ms. Rashi Jaiswal, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Mohd. Sakir, Adv., Mr. Wasim Rony, Adv., Mr. Raju Ganguly, Adv., Mr. Sohail Singh, Adv., Mr. Abdhesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shreshth Nanda, AOR, Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Adv., Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR, Ms. Shivali, Adv., Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, AOR, Ms. Nilotpal Shyam, Adv., Mr. Vineet Kumar Tripathi, Adv., Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, Adv., Mr. Shivendra Vikram, Adv., Mr. Sheyansh Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Ravi Bhushan, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The Supreme Court has clarified that arrest is not always necessary once a charge-sheet has been filed, and the petitioners can be granted bail upon appearing before the court within a specified period (!) .

2. The petitioners, who are accused in FIR No. 396 of 2025, had initially sought to quash the FIR through the High Court, which was declined. The High Court directed their appearance before the trial court within 60 days and granted liberty to apply for bail, emphasizing that bail can be considered as per existing precedents (!) .

3. The case involves allegations of cheating related to the denial of a refund, which was surreptitiously credited to another person's account of the same name. The accused's conduct is alleged to involve collusion and conspiracy to cheat a corporate entity. The corporate entity is currently before the National Company Law Tribunal, with an Interim Resolution Professional involved (!) .

4. Multiple FIRs were registered in different locations concerning the same set of facts, and some proceedings have been stayed or withdrawn. The investigation concluded with a final report indicating that the allegations were not substantiated, and the proceedings in some cases have been closed or not pressed (!) (!) (!) .

5. The parties agree that the other proceedings referred to need not continue, and the present FIR proceedings should proceed with the understanding that the petitioners will appear before the court, be granted bail, and cooperate in the case's expeditious disposal (!) .

6. The Court has directed that the petitioners appear before the jurisdictional court within one month, upon which they shall be granted bail and charges read over on the same day, with bail conditions to be decided by the court at its discretion (!) .

7. The complainant will be entitled to be represented by the Interim Resolution Professional, who can seek to summon responsible persons or officials involved in the matter for examination as witnesses (!) .

8. The Supreme Court has disposed of the Special Leave Petition with the above directions, and all pending applications are also disposed of accordingly (!) .

These points encapsulate the Court’s reasoning, directions regarding bail and proceedings, and the procedural posture of the case.