JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

This is the third bail application filed by the Applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 232 of 2024 registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 316(5), 111, and 238 of the B.N.S. The allegations pertain to a large-scale financial fraud involving forged banking instruments and the misappropriation of public `funds, amounting to approximately Rs.13.51 crores.

2. The Applicant has been in custody since 15.10.2024.

3. His first bail application was dismissed by this Court on 04.03.2025, and his second bail application was similarly rejected on 27.06.2025. In the backdrop of these successive rejections, the maintainability of the present, third application necessarily falls to be tested to see whether any new circumstance or ground has arisen that was not available earlier.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant’s implication is unfounded, as his name does not figure in the FIR. It is urged that no money trail has been established against him, no recovery has been made from his possession, and no direct evidence connects him with the alleged misappropriated amount.

6. The allegations concerning his use of a Scorpio vehicle to escort another conspirator named Rajkumar to a bank are said to be speculative, lacking corroborative proof through ownership records, GPS data, or CCTV identification.

7. It is further argued that his bank visit was confined to legitimate RTGS transactions for his brother, substantiated by his wife’s account statement. Reliance is also placed on the principle of parity, pointing out that co- accused Devendra Singh (Bank Manager) and Priyam Singh (Bank Officer), though directly involved in processing the forged cheques, have been granted bail.

8. On behalf of the State, learned AGA submitted that the allegations against the Applicant cannot be lightly brushed aside. It is pointed out that the charge-sheet dated 30.11.2024 attributes explicitly to the Applicant the role of escorting a co-conspirator and facilitating the fraudulent presentation of forged cheques.

9. The fact that his name did not appear in the FIR is not determinative, since an FIR is not expected to contain every detail, and the investigation has revealed his active role.

10. It is further submitted that the absence of direct monetary recovery does not exonerate him; in economic offences, complicity is often demonstrated through circumstantial evidence such as records, communications, and witness testimony. Granting bail at this stage, it is urged, carries the risk of interfering with the ongoing trial and influencing witnesses.

11. Upon consideration, this Court finds that the allegations against the Applicant are supported by material collected during the investigation. His role, as per the charge-sheet, is not of a peripheral nature but provides continuity to the conspiracy.

12. The defence explanation regarding RTGS transactions for his brother constitutes rebuttal evidence, which requires proof at trial and cannot be conclusively accepted at the present stage.

13. The plea of parity also cannot assist the Applicant, as the co-accused, who were released on bail, were bank officials accused of dereliction of official duty. In contrast, the Applicant is alleged to have acted as an external facilitator of the fraudulent scheme. His role, therefore, is distinct.

14. The primary consideration in a successive bail application is the emergence of new circumstances or fresh grounds which were not earlier available and which, if ignored, would result in undue curtailment of liberty.

15. In the present matter, however, the grounds raised, non-recovery of funds, absence of name in the FIR, residential stability, and parity, are the very grounds ear