Bail granted after chargesheet where the accused had no antecedents and offences were triable by Magistrate.

The applicant, Sahil Kumar, sought bail in connection with FIR No. 0018 of 2025, registered on 05 September 2025 at Police Station Deghat, District Almora, initially against an unknown person for an offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

After investigation, the applicant was charge-sheeted under Sections 308(5), 318(4), and 61(2) of the BNS, read with Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, that there was no link evidence against him, and that the informant had not supported the prosecution case, stating that the applicant neither called him nor made any demand.

It was further submitted that the applicant had been in custody since 14 October 2025, had no criminal antecedents, and that investigation against other accused persons remained pending.

The State opposed the application but accepted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that all the offences were triable by a Magistrate.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to release on bail in light of the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the offences were triable by a Magistrate?

2. Whether the pendency of further investigation against other persons affected the applicant’s entitlement to bail?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 308(5), 318(4), and 61(2) of the BNS, read with Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.

In deciding bail, the Court applied the established considerations of the applicant’s period of custody, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and the nature of the offences, including whether they were triable by a Magistrate.

The Court also exercised its discretion under the applicable bail provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence during trial and prevent misuse of liberty.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed against the applicant, reducing the immediate investigative justification for continued detention.

It also considered that the applicant had remained incarcerated since 14 October 2025, had no criminal antecedents, and faced offences triable by a Magistrate.

Although further investigation against other persons was pending, the Court did not treat that circumstance as sufficient to deny bail to the applicant, particularly when the charge-sheet had been filed against him.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

The release was subject to conditions that he attend the trial on every date without seeking unnecessary adjournments, surrender his passport, if any, within one week of release, and refrain from engaging in similar activities in future.

The prosecution was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach of any condition.