Bail granted after charge-sheet filing, with custody and likely trial delay weighing in the accused’s favor.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 338/2026, registered at Police Station Basna for alleged offences under Sections 74, 115(2), 296, 351 and 331(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that he entered the victim’s house, attempted to outrage her modesty, used abusive language and assaulted her.

The applicant submitted that the incident involved a scuffle, that the allegations were false, and that the charge-sheet had been filed. He had been in custody since 28 June 2026. The State opposed bail, relying on four criminal antecedents, including three cases under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and one under the IPC.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, antecedents, custody and stage of the proceedings.

If bail is granted, what conditions should govern the applicant’s release.

The Court considered the application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to the offences alleged under Sections 74, 115(2), 296, 351 and 331(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In deciding the application, it considered the case circumstances, the applicant’s custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the anticipated time for trial, and his criminal antecedents and bail status in the other cases. No precedent was cited.

The Court assessed the allegations in the context of the reported scuffle, finding that the victim was allegedly assaulted with hands and fists and that her clothes appeared to have been torn during the altercation.

It weighed those circumstances against the applicant’s antecedents, noting that the IPC case had been disposed of and that he had already been granted bail in the three pending Excise Act cases. The charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 28 June 2026, and trial was likely to take time; on balance, the Court found bail appropriate.

The order imposed conditions requiring attendance, discouraging adjournments when witnesses are present, and requiring personal appearance at specified stages of trial; it also provided for action in accordance with law in the event of specified defaults or misuse of bail.