Absence of specific overt acts and completion of investigation warrant grant of regular bail.

The applicant, Mithlesh Patel (aged 22), was arrested on 15.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 377/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur.

The prosecution alleges that on 07.09.2025, during a Ganesh Visarjan procession, a dispute occurred while dancing, leading the applicant and co-accused Dipesh Pradhan to abuse and assault the complainant and his companions.

It is further alleged that one associate used a sharp object to cause injury.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, arguing that he was falsely implicated due to local rivalry, that the injury with a sharp weapon was attributed to a co-accused, and that there was an unexplained four-day delay in lodging the FIR.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the allegations and the stage of the proceedings.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant regular bail.

The substantive offences were considered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 296 (obscenity in public), Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 109(1) (abetment), Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and Section 3(5) (common intention).

The court also invoked procedural safeguards under Sections 269, 84, and 209 of the BNS/BNSS to ensure the applicant’s presence during trial and to prevent the abuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the applicant's specific role and personal circumstances.

It observed that while the applicant was allegedly involved in the altercation, the specific overt act of using a sharp weapon was attributed to a co-accused and not the applicant.

The Court noted that the applicant is a 22-year-old with no prior criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 15.11.2025.

Since the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is expected to be protracted, the Court found no justification for continued pre-trial detention.

The Court also took into account the applicant's undertaking to abide by bail conditions and the fact that the co-accused remains an absconder.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties.

The Court imposed several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) he must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS; and (iii) any misuse of bail or failure to appear shall trigger proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.

The trial court was directed to ensure strict compliance with these conditions.