At the bail stage, courts assess a prima facie case without detailed evidentiary review.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 480/2026, registered for offences under Sections 308(2), 318(4), 319(2), 62 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants and a co-accused impersonated Anti-Corruption Bureau officials and demanded liquor bottles and cash from a District Excise Officer.

Following the officer’s FIR, Sourabh Prajapati was arrested on the basis of call detail records, and other accused were implicated during the investigation.

The applicants asserted that they had been falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 27 July 2026, and that the trial would take considerable time.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the State’s assertion of direct evidence against the applicants justified refusing bail at this stage.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

At the bail stage, the Court’s role is confined to determining whether a prima facie case exists; it must not conduct a detailed examination of evidence touching on the merits of the prosecution.

The order cites no specific precedent.

Although the State relied on alleged direct evidence in the case diary, the Court held that assessing that evidence in detail would exceed the proper scope of a bail hearing.

Having considered the case diary, the applicants’ lack of live criminal antecedents, their custody since 27 July 2026, and the likelihood of further delay before trial conclusion, the Court found that bail was warranted.

Their release was subject to conditions requiring availability for police interrogation when required, non-interference with persons acquainted with the case, and conduct that does not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail applications and would not affect the trial Court’s independent decision on the merits.