Bail Granted After Charge-Sheet Filing, Considering Custody and Likely Trial Delay despite Robbery Allegations.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in two cases arising from alleged robberies on 10 June 2026.

In one case, the complainant alleged that he was robbed of a cellphone at knifepoint; in the other, the complainant alleged that ₹200 and a motorcycle were taken and that he was injured with a knife.

The applicant was not named in either FIR and was later implicated on the basis of co-accused Sunny Sarthi’s memorandum statement. The knife, motorcycle and cash were recovered from Sunny Sarthi; the looted cellphone was recovered from the applicant.

The applicant had been in custody since 10 June 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had no other criminal antecedents apart from these cases.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in Crime No. 310/2026, registered under Sections 309(6) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in Crime No. 309/2026, registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 296, 351(3), 309(6), 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the procedural basis for the High Court to consider an application for regular bail.

The Court assessed the applications by considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s alleged role and the recoveries, the stage of the proceedings, the period of custody, and the likely time for conclusion of trial.

No precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the alleged robberies, including the use of a knife by co-accused Sunny Sarthi and the injuries to one complainant.

However, the motorcycle and cash were recovered from Sunny Sarthi, while the applicant’s implication arose from the co-accused’s memorandum statement; the cellphone was recovered from the applicant.

The Court also considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 10 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

On the totality of those circumstances, and without commenting on the merits, it found bail appropriate in both cases.

It directed that the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair trial and requiring the applicant to attend every hearing until the trial’s disposal.