Bail jurisprudence keeps returning to a simple discipline: reasons for detention must relate to the trial, not to the accused's reputation. On 22 September 2026, Justice Sanjeet Purohit of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in Ranveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12391/2026, granted regular bail to two men accused of collecting money through a fraudulent investment scheme, holding — on the strength of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. — that the gravity of the offence and the pendency of other criminal cases cannot, by themselves, justify continued custody.
The case
FIR No. 193/2024, Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur, alleged that the accused collected money from investors as instalments in a scheme promising returns — conduct charged as cheating and criminal conspiracy (Sections 420 and 120-B) along with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Ranveer Singh and a co-applicant, in custody since July 2025 and May 2025 respectively, applied for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS after the chargesheet had been filed. The State opposed, pressing their criminal antecedents; the defence answered that the antecedents were pending cases in many of which coordinate benches had already granted bail, and that co-accused Megh Singh had been on bail since October 2025.
The reasoning
Triable by a Magistrate. The forum of trial signals the legislature\'s own assessment of gravity; prolonged pre-trial custody in Magistrate-triable cases requires special justification.
Custody with chargesheet filed. Once investigation is complete, detention no longer serves an investigative purpose; the focus shifts to securing presence at trial, which conditions can achieve.
Parity. A similarly placed co-accused had been on bail for nearly a year without complaint of misuse.
Antecedents in perspective. Quoting Prabhakar Tewari: "the gravity of alleged offences or mere pendency of other criminal case(s) cannot be a sufficient ground to deny bail." Antecedents inform conditions; they do not decide custody.
What the Court held
The bail applications were allowed. The Court acknowledged that "the offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious", but held that these factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusing bail where custody has been long, the chargesheet stands filed and the trial will take significant time. Each applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of Rs 25,000, subject to the usual quartet of conditions — attendance, no tampering, no fresh offences, and cancellation on breach.
The judgment is a reminder that in economic offence cases the real battleground is often not Section 420 itself but the special statute — here the Prize Chits Act — and that even under such statutes, the ordinary bail principles of custody-period, chargesheet status and parity continue to apply unless the statute imposes twin conditions.
How this translates to practice
| Objection raised by the State | Answer supported by this decision |
|---|---|
| "The accused has many pending cases" | List each case with its stage and bail status. Pendency without conviction is not a disqualification; bail orders of coordinate benches in those cases carry weight. |
| "The offence is grave — investors lost money" | Gravity is one factor. Where the offence is Magistrate-triable and custody is long, gravity alone cannot sustain detention. |
| "Bail will send the wrong signal" | Bail decisions rest on the triple test — flight risk, tampering, influence on witnesses — not on signalling. Conditions address each risk. |
| "Co-accused\'s bail was wrongly granted" | Unless that order is challenged and set aside, parity remains a legitimate consideration. |
The takeaway
For accused persons facing multi-FIR investment fraud allegations — a growing category in Delhi as much as Rajasthan — the decision consolidates a practical checklist: obtain and document bail in each connected case, press parity early, and anchor the application in custody arithmetic and trial timelines rather than merits alone. For complainants and the State, the lesson is the mirror image: opposition must be built on specific, current risks to the trial, because generalities about gravity and antecedents no longer carry the day.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do pending criminal cases disqualify an accused from bail?
No. In Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court held that the gravity of the alleged offence and the mere pendency of other criminal cases cannot be a sufficient ground to deny bail; each case must be examined on its own circumstances. The Rajasthan High Court applied exactly that rule here, noting also that the applicants had obtained bail in several of their other cases.
What factors favoured bail in this case?
Four in the main: the offences were triable by a Magistrate; the applicants had been in custody since mid-2025 — over a year; the chargesheet had been filed, ending the investigative need for custody; and a co-accused had already been granted bail in October 2025, raising parity.
What is the role of parity in bail?
Parity means similarly placed co-accused should ordinarily receive similar treatment. It is a relevant consideration, not an absolute rule — the court still compares roles and antecedents. Here, with the co-accused on bail and no meaningful distinction in role, parity reinforced the other factors.
What conditions were imposed?
Each applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of Rs 25,000 each, and to comply with conditions including regular appearance at trial, abstention from criminal activity and non-interference with evidence, with cancellation to follow any breach.