01Facts
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 82/2026, registered for offences under Sections 106(1), 105 and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
¶ 1The prosecution alleged that a 16-year-old passenger fell from a pickup driven by the applicant while returning from a ceremony and later died from his injuries.
¶ 2The applicant argued that the incident arose from negligence, that Section 105 BNS was not made out in the absence of the requisite intention, and that the charge-sheet had been filed; he had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 22 September 2026. The State opposed bail, alleging rash driving and that the vehicle had struck a standing tree.
¶ 3–402Issues
i.Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in the circumstances of the case, including the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody, and the absence of criminal antecedents.
¶ 3, 5–6ii.Whether the State’s reliance on the alleged circumstances of the accident and the addition of Section 105 BNS warranted refusal of bail at this stage.
¶ 3–603Law Applied
The Court considered the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s power to grant bail.
¶ 1In deciding the application, it assessed the case’s circumstances, including the FIR and witness statements, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody and antecedents, and the likely time required to conclude the trial.
¶ 6The order cites no precedent and does not determine the merits of the charges under the BNS or the Motor Vehicles Act.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 13 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 84Section 351
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 106Section 105Section 281Section 269Section 209
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 184Section 66Section 192Section 146Section 196
04Reasoning
The Court considered the FIR and witness statements, the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, his custody since 22 September 2026, and the likelihood that trial would take time.
¶ 6On that assessment, and without expressing an opinion on the merits—including the dispute concerning the applicability of Section 105 BNS—the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.
¶ 3, 605Holding
The Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant’s release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, subject to the trial court’s satisfaction.
¶ 7Conditions included attending proceedings, not seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, and appearing personally on specified trial dates; further consequences were prescribed for default or misuse of bail.
¶ 7Original Court PDF
PANKAJ KUMARvsTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
