A pending criminal antecedent does not preclude bail after charge-sheet filing where trial will take time.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 295/2026, registered at Kawardha Police Station under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. Police allegedly seized a sattapati ledger and ₹780 from him after receiving secret information.

The applicant had three criminal antecedents: two cases had been disposed of, while a 2024 case under Sections 201 and 420 of the IPC remained pending.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s antecedents, including two cases said to be of a similar nature.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had been in custody since 29 July 2026.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite his criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

The alleged offence was under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.

The Court identified no precedent or further legal test; it considered the case circumstances, including the completion of investigation, custody, likely time to conclude trial, and the applicant’s antecedents.

Although the applicant had one pending antecedent from 2024, the Court considered that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, that he had been in judicial custody since 29 July 2026, and that trial was likely to take time.

On those circumstances, and without commenting on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail.

It directed that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair and expeditious trial and requiring his appearance on every trial date.

The observations were confined to the bail application, and the trial Court was to decide the case on its merits.