Defending the Accused and Co‑Accused in Serious Cheating and Forgery Cases under BNS Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61

In today’s digital age, cyber fraud cases are rising rapidly, and many FIRs include multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, such as Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, and 61. Often, along with the main accused, several co-accused are also implicated. However, being named in an FIR does not automatically mean guilt. The law provides strong defence opportunities, especially when the role of the co-accused is limited or doubtful.

Let’s understand these sections in simple language and how a best criminal lawyer near you, can defend an accused or co-accused.

Understanding the Sections (Simple Explanation)

• Section 318(4) BNS (Cheating)
  This deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, similar to old IPC 420. It is compoundable only with court permission.
• Section 336(3) BNS (Act Endangering Life)
  Punishes rash or negligent acts that endanger human life.
• Section 338 BNS (Grievous Hurt by Negligence)
  Applies when serious injury is caused due to negligence.
• Section 340 BNS (Wrongful Confinement / related offence)
  Covers illegal restraint or confinement.
• Section 61 BNS (Criminal Conspiracy / Common Intention)
  Often used to connect co-accused with the main accused.

Many of these offences are non-compoundable, meaning compromise alone cannot end the case.

⚖️ Key Defence Strategy for Co-Accused

Defending a co-accused is like separating threads in a tangled knot. The lawyer must show individual role and lack of direct involvement.

1. No Direct Role or Evidence

If the co-accused has no direct link with the fraud (no money received, no communication with victim), this becomes the strongest defence.

2. Absence of Mens Rea (Criminal Intention)

Cheating requires intention. If the accused unknowingly participated (e.g., employee, agent), no offence is made out.

3. Parity with Co-Accused

If another accused has already been granted bail on similar facts, the same benefit can be claimed.

4. Documentary Recovery Not from Accused

If recovery of money or devices is not from the co-accused, it weakens prosecution case.

5. Trial Will Take Long Time

Courts consider that prolonged custody is unnecessary when trial may take years.

Courts have also observed that in such offences, bail may be granted when custodial interrogation is not required. 

🏛️ Landmark Supreme Court Judgments for Defence

1. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI

• Supreme Court held that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
• Even in serious economic offences, if trial takes time and evidence is documentary, bail should be granted.

2. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

• Court restricted unnecessary arrests.
• Police must justify arrest; otherwise, accused should not be detained unnecessarily.

👉 These judgments are powerful tools for defending both accused and co-accused in BNS cases.

Two important Supreme Court principles help in defending accused and co‑accused in such cases:

1. In several cheating and forgery rulings, the Court has clarified that absence of dishonest inducement or effective deception at the time of the transaction means the offence of cheating is not made out, even if some document later turns out to be forged or irregular.​
   
   
2. In conspiracy cases under the old section 120B (now section 61 BNS), the Court has held that the “agreement” to commit an offence must be proved by definite evidence; mere knowledge or association is not enough to convict a co‑accused.

Thus, a defence lawyer/ best bail lawyer in Sonipat can argue for the bail that: the core ingredients of cheating, forgery and conspiracy are not proved; the role of the co‑accused is vague; and there is no clear evidence of dishonest agreement or active participation. When these arguments are presented clearly, even in serious BNS cases, courts have the power to grant bail, discharge, or acquittal based on benefit of doubt.